Countryside Alliance Angling Forum

[KANNY]

peter i think you have got me wrong i nothing wrong with people having a diffrent look on things it makes it intresting.........but what i highly object to is the use of anti propaganda and mistruths about hunting which you and others have used.

 

y.i.s

 

kanny

 

http://www.masskilling.com/exhibit.html

 

[ 10. March 2003, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: KANNY ]

[Peter M]

The point is that some people like hunting shooting and fishing, but many people just like fishing and don't feel it is akin to hunting or shooting. For a start off it is not a purely country sport. Ask those who fish in towns and cities. some will argue that they are akn to each other but some might say that there are other things that share similarites, like football and chess, painting and gardening, a tomato and a toffee, there are a few similarities but mostly differences. This is how I feel about hunting and fishing. So I think do most anglers.

[Peter Waller]

Kanny, I firmly believe that what I am saying/writing is the truth.

 

It would be easy for me to ask whether the truth hurts or not. But I suspect that you also believe in what you are saying with equal sincerity.

[phonebush]

In the US we call this argument NIMBY. NIMBY means "not in my back yard".

Phone

[H Jampton]

Peter Waller:

You make the point that keepers don't wish to be accused of wiping out all the foxes on their patch. Well, why not?

Shoots are quite often on rented land. The land owner might hunt. If there are no foxes to find then the land might not be available for shooting for very long. Equally, the owner might enjoy shooting and hunting.

The people on horseback have no idea about some of the things that go on at peasant level.

The fox is a pest as far as the keeper is concerned and he is the best person to control their numbers, though his ways of doing it do nothing to preserve a healthy fox population (by 'healthy', I don't mean numerous). Shooting, by and large, is less humane than hunting. Most people will use shotguns and someone mentioned somewhere about foxes not being good carriers of lead. Gassing is only allowed using approved chemicals, but can anybody tell me what is approved? Snaring is indiscriminate, but is very efficient. Live catch cage traps are expensive, time consuming and don't work very well, except in towns where the foxes are used to human scent.

The silly fools on horseback should never, in my opinion, have put forward the pest control arguement. The only advantage that I can see of having a hunt control foxes, is that they do it for nothing. Unlike those people, on somebody's payroll, that catch the town foxes and dump them in the countryside.

I have never thought of hunting as an efficient method of controlling foxes, but it is the nearest thing to nature's way of maintaining a fit, clever fox population.

 

Still no news on the New Forest identity!!

[Peter Waller]

Interesting and honest answer, thankyou. Fox populations are maintained in order to provide sport, we both know that. So why badger on about the co-ordinates for the New Forest, or was that simply tongue in cheek?

[H Jampton]

Peter Waller:

Interesting and honest answer, thankyou. Fox populations are maintained in order to provide sport, we both know that. So why badger on about the co-ordinates for the New Forest, or was that simply tongue in cheek?

Graham X, or is it Malcolm X, made a statement that he his either unable or unwilling to substantiate, like so much of what is said by the anti-hunting people.

[corydoras]

quote:

---

Originally posted by H Jampton

 

Gassing is only allowed using approved chemicals, but can anybody tell me what is approved?

---

Can I direct you to this DEFRA document.

 

 

Urban Foxes

 

Although the main topic discussed here is urban foxes I am fairly confident that this paragraph holds true for foxes in general.

 

Methods of fox control

 

Prohibited Methods

It is illegal to use self-locking snares, any bow or crossbow, any explosive other than ammunition for a firearm, or a live decoy. It is also illegal to poison foxes. No fumigant compounds are currently approved for the gassing of foxes. My italics.

 

Which means I am contradicting one of my earlier posts where I said that Cymag was authorized for gassing foxes.

 

Authorized or not Cymag was used heavily in Scotland when I was a nipper and I am sure that there will still be hill farmers in Scotland who will pop a couple of teaspoonfuls of Cymag down a earth then block it up. It works a treat. you just have to be real carefull with the stuff because cynanide gas is just as toxic to other animals (including humans) as it is the fox.

 

[ 11. March 2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: corydoras ]

[Guest sslatter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Waller:

Interesting and honest answer, thankyou. Fox populations are maintained in order to provide sport, we both know that. So why badger on about the co-ordinates for the New Forest, or was that simply tongue in cheek?

 

Originally posted by "Hugh Jampton": Graham X, or is it Malcolm X, made a statement that he his either unable or unwilling to substantiate, like so much of what is said by the anti-hunting people.

I’ll ignore the racist overtones to that last remark, and just address your statement. The fact that this goes on is well-known, and has been reiterated by others in this thread. And I’m not unable to substantiate this fact, but am certainly unwilling. I have to ask myself why is this person so keen on knowing exactly where these particular earths are? I wonder if I’m alone in thinking that I smell a rat as regards this poster, and one particular other one. Just which side of the extremist fence are they on? You seem to have accepted the fact that this goes on, so why the particular interest in these ones in the Forest?

So, let’s say that we kiss and make up, and stroll hand-in-hand down a sylvan glade somewhere in the depths of the Forest, and I reveal to you one of these earths. All you will see will be a mound of overgrown earth, bushes etc. A local will appear and say that this mound is a result of some left-over drainage pipes that were surplus to requirements after a forest drainage project, and which were left in situ, and have been gradually overgrown, and taken over by foxes. There will be scraps of food left over, here-and-there around the earth. No surprise there. But nothing that you can see will betray the fact that this is an artificial situation set-up by those who, whenever they need a fox or two, know that they can bag one from this site.

But if you think I’m fool enough to tell someone like you where it/they are, whose motives must remain extremely dubious, well…

 

quote:

---

“Hugh Jampton” wrote: “The people on horseback have no idea about some of the things that go on at peasant level.”

A very revealing remark, but I’m still confused. Which side of that particular fence are you on?

 

All I can reiterate is that not only must our sport BE squeaky-clean, it must be SEEN to be as squeaky-clean as possible, and that means NOT aligning itself with the views of ANY extremist group, PARTICULARLY those who have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with angling. You wallow in your own trough…don’t pull anglers and angling into it.

 

[ 11. March 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Graham X ]

[Guest sslatter]

KANNY:

well graham im sure that most true anglers are glad that they have people defending countryside pursuits angling included..

Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

quote:

---

quote graham x

Coarse fishing does not involve the pursuit of a live animal, which is put under the most stressful condition there is: that of literally “running for its life

 

so you dont go in persuit of your fish graham? what do they do just jump in your net? and talking about keep nets wouldent you say that this pratice is most stressful to the fish? andthe running for its life comment so your saying that when a carp runs it is not running for its life? what it knows its just FUN?

So there we have it. Here is someone who, whilst believing that angling is equivalent to torture, has no qualms about doing it. Let me tell you something my friend. If I thought the same as you, I'd give up angling. And there we have it in a nutshell, the difference between you and me.

 

quote:

---

graham you obviously have never been on a hunt 99% of the time the kill is instant fox hounds are real pro's and know there bizz and as for the hours of the hunt the fox is only under stress once the pack are on its arse at the end of the hunt

Yeah right.

 

quote:

---

...abit like a hooked fish i would say!

There you go again. If you think that this is the same as the fox, but have no compunction about doing it, this just underlines the point I made earlier.

 

quote:

---

...and ive stated b4 fox hunting is pest control

No it's not. This is just an excuse, the same old tired lame excuse that most foxhunting supporters have dropped. It's been disproved. Read back in this thread.

 

quote:

---

...the plesure eliment comes from keeping and training horses and dogs and not the deed of killing

So go DRAGHUNTING then! If the fox is irrelevant to the "pleasure", then you should be quite happy with draghunting, shouldn't you? But something tells me you won't be.

 

quote:

---

y.i.s

Keep angling out of it mate. You want to drum up support for your "beliefs" go forth and do it, by all means. Just don't use angling as your soapbox. After all, by your own admission, you're a "hunter" first, and an "angler" second, aren't you? That says it all.