Countryside alliance , THE MARCH

[chesters1]

fox hunting favours the fox ,a statement in jack hargreaves book says in ww2 all the foxes were shot by the farmers (in his area),when the huntsmen returned they had to import them

as for the ban in scotland it is got round by having a couple of people with shot guns with them ,the hounds are then used to "flush" the fox to the waiting guns (unless ofcourse the fox heads the other way

[Newt]

DMCA:

I don't understand this attitude. It's possible to extend it until you legitimise anything: stoning for adultery (Iran, parts of Nigeria), female circumcision (various), torture generally. 'Well, I think it's evil but people should be allowed to do it if they like'.

Er - DMCA, don't know if you noticed but you are equating people with foxes and other wild animals. Sort of a non-sequitur isn't it? Goes way beyond "extending an attitude" anyway.

[GlennB]

Liamsm:

Glen,

        I don't consider fishing to be cruel either,

I do consider fox hunting to be cruel and would never take part in it.

However that is only my personal opinion,  many have a different view, that they are also entitled to,

Many have the view that fishing is cruel , so what makes our opinion, or view any more valid than theirs?.Liam

Yeah, I suspected that.

But I don't see it as a matter of opinion.

I see it as a combination of things - the objective of the 'hunter', the capacity of the quarry to experience distress, etc etc.

 

Later tonight I'm going to light the pile of garden debris at the bottom of our veggie patch. I won't give a thought the the billions of bacteria that'll die in the bonfire. Nor the many thousands of mites,spiders,insects,woodlice,slugs,snails,worms etc etc that will die. If there were birds nesting in the pile or hedgehogs hibernating there, I'd hold off.

We make judgements about these things based on our view of the 'victims' capacity for suffering.

I believe foxes suffer in the chase and the kill. I don't believe fish suffer when caught. If I did, I'd stop fishing.

 

cheers

 

Glenn

[chesters1]

you can ban what you like in this country ,i`m sure murder is banned ,like wise female circumscission ,ban away but it wont stop

on the other hand if you ban female circumscission why not male :confused: if its done for religeouse reasons is it child abuse :confused: where does it stop ,ban it and it goes underground not away

 

[ 23. September 2002, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[Liamsm]

"I don't understand this attitude. It's possible to extend it until you legitimise anything: stoning for adultery (Iran, parts of Nigeria), female circumcision (various), torture generally. 'Well, I think it's evil but people should be allowed to do it if they like'."

 

It is quite obvious that you do not understand this attitude.

As with others you are trying to equate Civil Rights with other things that infringe the rights of other people (stoning, adultery, forced female circumcision etc. etc etc.) so obviously they should be a mater of law for the protection of those people.

Therefore there is no relevance in the subject matter, that you have chosen to strengthen your argument.

What should not be a matter of law, is anything that you do, that does not infringe the rights of another individual.

 

I hope that you now understand this attitude, as I do not now how to make it any clearer.

.......Liam.

[chesters1]

just a little more clearer PLEEEAAASSSE :confused:

[Peter Waller]

chesters1:

just a little more clearer PLEEEAAASSSE    :confused:                  

I'll second that Chesters!!

 

Liamsm, in many respects I agree with you. I'm one who marched for CND and the Civil Rights movements during the '60s, and it still remains a matter of importance to this day. However I do not believe that Fox hunting is a civil rights issue. Perhaps it is a poor arguement to try and ally them. We claim to be a civilised society. Somethings, like Fox hunting, bear baiting, ten year old chimney sweeps etc. have no place in a civilised society.

 

Interesting to note that on the Children's news bulletins there has been much mention of 'Huntin, shootin AND fishing. On the adult news bulletins, no mention of 'AND fishin'! Strange that.

 

Back to the mining strikes, I was a pro photographer at the time. I had a picture of met police officers lighting their cigarettes with ten pound notes, and they were doing it in front of the picket lines. Those pictures were not published, but I tried.

 

On matters such as those Den & I are as one.

 

[ 23. September 2002, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Liamsm]

Glen,

Building a bonfire can be an infringment of your neighborus rights, and is covered by appropriat by-laws with no concideration to any other form of life.

The rest, is as it should be. Up to the good concience of the individual. (tongue in cheek)

.....Liam.

 

[ 23. September 2002, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Liamsm ]

[DMCA]

quote:

---

Er - DMCA, don't know if you noticed but you are equating people with foxes and other wild animals. Sort of a non-sequitur isn't it? Goes way beyond "extending an attitude" anyway.[/QB]

---

Longwinded reply time:

 

No equation between people and animals intended nor (it seems to me) implied. The point was to show the extrapolation in extreme form of a particular attitude. The attitude is the same whether it relates to people or animals. I see know reason to defend someone's right to carry out acts of unacceptable cruelty to human OR animal.

 

In this case the question then is whether you think hunting is unacceptably cruel: if you think that cruelty is always unacceptable and you consider hunting cruel then the implication is clear; if you think hunting is cruel and cruel in an unjustifiable way, then don't sit on the fence about it (this is the crux of the matter); if you think hunting is cruel but in some way acceptably so (because we are only dealing with animals after all, perhaps) then defend the rights of hunters. If you don't consider it is cruel at all then defend the rights of hunters too of course.

 

To make the point clearer with regard to animals alone, I personally don't wish to defend someone's right, say, to kick, starve, cook or otherwise torture a dog to death. That goes beyond the pale, I think. Likewise, for some people, including, it would appear, some people posting on here, hunting is beyond the pale. If you do feel that way then defending someone's right to do it seems inconsistent. There's a world of difference between defending someone's right, for example, to free speech and defending their right to act in any way they choose.

Hope that's a bit clearer at least..

 

btw Chesters...are you implying that there should be no laws since people will do 'unlawful' things anyway? Couldn't quite follow what you meant. Could be worth a go though cos there are a few people I wouldn't mind bumping off with impunity.

[Jim Roper]

chesters1:

strictly speaking as a bullet flies faster than sound

Unless you are using subsonic ammunition!

 

I shoot about half my foxes with subsonic ammo. Within 50 yards they would probably just about hear the bang before impact if it were not for the sound moderator.

 

The recommended shot to take for deer (high velocity ammo) is the heart/lung shot. This is because the target area is larger and therefore easier to hit. The animal does not drop stone dead when the bullet impacts and it is not recommended to chase the wounded animal because this will only prolong the time that it takes to die (adrenolin, I think). The officianados say that you should wait about the length of time it takes to smoke a cigaret(don't smoke so not sure on this) before following up with the dog. In that time the animal will have probably curled up somewhere and died. Chase it, and you could be running for 20 minutes! Foxes appear to die quicker, probably due to the shock of the impact having a bigger affect on their smaller mass.

 

The rifleman who says he never misses is a liar!

 

In the time between the decision to fire and the bullet impacting, even with high velocity ammo, a fox can move several feet, from stationery, easily. Certainly it can make the difference between being killed almost instantly with a head shot and having it's hind legs blown off.

 

I've had this happen and the fox would not stay still to get in a second shot to finish her off. The bullet just clipped her back end and dragged all her innards out of her backside. Not a pretty sight!

 

On another occasion I was waiting for some cubs to come out to play. Out they came and had a rough and tumble for a few minutes before calming down. I took aim at one and, as I squeezed off the trigger, I saw another cross in front of it through the scope. The result was 2 stone dead cubs for 1 bullet. A very pretty sight!

 

I do not think I will ever forget either of these shots, but for different reasons!!!

 

Of course most foxes are shot with shotguns. That's what most people in the country have. "He's got enough lead in him to die." Can't count the times I've heard that said!

 

Jim Roper

 

http://www.searchlineuk.com/FishList.htm

 

[ 24. September 2002, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Jim Roper ]