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
Avatar,

If those people like the dogs, they won't kill them. I'm sure that there are a lot of animal rights activists that would offer to shelter them.

You miss the point. The dogs lose purpose. They go through life, coddled and useless. What a horrid existance.

Kenworth,

enjoy?what do you mean by that?
my point is lions hunting animals:necessary.
humans hunting foxes:not

Most life has moved beyond just necessity. Sexual selection is a pretty good example of this. Lions like to hunt. Big cats are known to kill stuff just for fun. They'll maul it a bit, eat a little meat, then leave it for rot and vultures. Hardly necessity. Play and fun and games.
 
You miss the point. The dogs lose purpose. They go through life, coddled and useless. What a horrid existance.
A purpose for human hunters maybe, but there's still the purpose of living, i.e., the experience of life.
 
So we should put dolphins in pens where they can't play and dogs in kennels and apes in cages? Some experiments on rabbits. Rub soap in their eyes, make sure it's ok for human use.

It is the experience of life, right?

So is getting hunted by hounds. It's life.
 
Why do you suggest to put them in cages? Or do all non-huning dogs in the UK spend their lifes chained to a chain? :confused: :rolleyes:
So is getting hunted by hounds. It's life.
I think it's a lot more enjoyable when you're not being chased to a heart attack and/or ripped to shreds.
 
Why do you suggest to put them in cages? Or do all non-huning dogs in the UK spend their lifes chained to a chain?

I'm just suggesting we take animals out of their natural, dangerous environments and put them in safe, padded places where they won't get hurt. It's still an experiment, right?

I think it's a lot more enjoyable when you're not being chased to a heart attack and/or ripped to shreds.

Life without struggle isn't much of a life.

[PS]
I like how fast these replies are. It's almost like talking. Almost.
 
I'm just suggesting we take animals out of their natural, dangerous environments and put them in safe, padded places where they won't get hurt. It's still an experiment, right?
I have absolutely nothing about animals killing and getting killed in natural habitats, it's life,
but when hunters on horses join in, it's not a fair competition anymore. I mean - it's one fox against a pack of dogs and hunters with radios on horses. What's the thrill of victory in that? The same as beating a child senseless.
Life without struggle isn't much of a life.
Of course, but isn't there enough struggle without that cruel and torturous hunting?
 
I have absolutely nothing about animals killing and getting killed in natural habitats, it's life,
but when hunters on horses join in, it's not a fair competition anymore. I mean - it's one fox against a pack of dogs and hunters with radios on horses. What's the thrill of victory in that? The same as beating a child senseless.

And where's the thrill in tearin a birthing herd animal to shreds? Where's the thrill in hutning the weak and old? The thrill is in the hunt, the chase, the taste of fresh blood and the scream of the hunted.

Beating children senseless... funny you should mention that. Most predators without hesitation will tear children (of whatever specie) limb from limb. It's easier that way.
 
And where's the thrill in tearin a birthing herd animal to shreds? Where's the thrill in hutning the weak and old? The thrill is in the hunt, the chase, the taste of fresh blood and the scream of the hunted.
Well, that's subjective. I don't see anything thrilling in that.
Mind you I'm from a hunter family, so the hunt is not something unknown to me.
And I've spent most of my childhood in forests and intend to do it again in a few years.

Beating children senseless... funny you should mention that. Most predators without hesitation will tear children (of whatever specie) limb from limb. It's easier that way.
I think that humans can do better than that, at least have the capacity.
Of course "better" is subjective too, but in my set of values life is better than no life.
 
Avatar, are you denying then that animals don't take pleasure in killing stuff? Because I seriously have to disagree with you. In almost all my experience with mammalian predators, they like to kill stuff.

It only makes sense that we love to do what we're good at. How bad is it then, that humans, working with their animals and in a social group, like the thrill of the chase, regardless of how tame it is?
 
We might be animals by nature but socially we are not, because we have something called: civilisation, which in part is formed out of religions.

It is only when civilisation collapses is when i would say ROMAN is 100% correct, after a global nuclear war i do not think survivors will carry on like nothing has happened, people will kill each other over a bag of crisps, and you will not think twice about how cute foxes look, youll just rip em apart and feast on their tasty insides.

Hence why it is best to suppress all those natural urges and continue to build a moral society.
 
Avatar, are you denying then that animals don't take pleasure in killing stuff? Because I seriously have to disagree with you. In almost all my experience with mammalian predators, they like to kill stuff.
I think you are confusing me with someone else, I never said they didn't.
How bad is it then, that humans, working with their animals and in a social group, like the thrill of the chase, regardless of how tame it is?
I don't care about the thrill here, it's what happens with the fox that I don't like, i.e., torture and very cruel death when there is no reason for it to be.
But our perception of the world around is so different that I think it is no use of continuing this discussion.

We might be animals by nature but socially we are not
Of course we are. Other apes have societies too.
because we have something called: civilisation, which in part is formed out of religions.
Depends on the scale and the subjects you're observing. On the grand scale - sure there are civilizations, but there is full of places even in big cities that know little of any civilization.
Hence why it is best to suppress all those natural urges and continue to build a moral society.
Any good psychiatrist will tell you that suppressing something is not the best way to go, because the urge stays. A better way is to know the urge, its causes and way of working and control it to your benefit.
 
Last edited:
Roman said:
Lions like to hunt. Big cats are known to kill stuff just for fun. They'll maul it a bit, eat a little meat, then leave it for rot and vultures. Hardly necessity. Play and fun and games.
Have you got any links to support this, because I'd certainly debate whether they kill purely for enjoyment - I'd imagine there's also an element of practice involved. Like cats catching live prey and letting them go for their cubs to catch. It's not the kindest death for the prey, but it is necessary if the cubs are to learn how to hunt.
 
Avatar,
you said
Well, that's subjective. I don't see anything thrilling in that.
to me saying
And where's the thrill in tearin a birthing herd animal to shreds? Where's the thrill in hutning the weak and old? The thrill is in the hunt, the chase, the taste of fresh blood and the scream of the hunted.

And you thought I was describing people. I wasn't. I was describing natural predators, like bears and wolves and how they go after the weak, young and feeble.

I don't care about the thrill here, it's what happens with the fox that I don't like, i.e., torture and very cruel death when there is no reason for it to be.
But our perception of the world around is so different that I think it is no use of continuing this discussion.

Good call. Let's call it quits.
 
Back
Top