Boxing Day Predators

[The Flying Tench]

fenboy:

 

As a priest, I assume you have signed up to the human ascendancy bit that I believe is a basic building block of Christianity?

 

I've never heard it referred to as 'human ascendancy', but I guess that's a reasonable phrase. There's a verse in the book of Genesis where God tells humankind to rule the earth, including the animals. It has the implication of responsible government. I wouldn't want to justify hunting or even fishing from that one verse, but most christians (and jews)take this and other verses as meaning that humans are more important than the other animals, but that we should treat them responsibly. There are a few nutters (imho) inside and outside the church who say this amounts to 'speciesism', or giving priority to one species. Unless I misunderstand this view it is absurd, and says that all species are equal - so a maggot, or even a germ, is of equal value to a human being! In other words, the doctrine of 'ascendancy' doesn't amount to much more than what nearly everyone in our culture believes anyway - though there's a bit of a spectrum of belief on it. Yes, I ascribe to this view, personally, and I believe, for example, that it is valid to use animals for medical research (and also to go fishing!) as long as all possible is done to avoid suffering to the animals.

 

So, my question John is this: has that "human ascendancy" bit been wiped from The Book? And if not, why are you asking us rather than advising us? I thought the latter was part of the job description?

Fenboy, I found your post perfectly reasonable, except on first reading the last sentence comes over as a bit sarcastic; that may well not be intended, but I assume it's what PW is referring to. Either way it's no big deal, but I may only be partly understanding your question. You seem to be saying that, because of our position/beliefs, vicars are/should be dogmatic on ethical issues such as foxhunting! Here goes:

 

The 'ascendancy' bit is still in. There are a range of views about it within christianity (for example, some take the old testament more literally than others), but I accept it personally. My question was a secondary, factual one about how huntspeople feel when they see a fox destroyed. Even on the substantive issue of foxhunting, though, I wouldn't wish to pronounce because a)there's a range of views amongst christians, and I don't think the bible gives a straightforward simple answer inevitably members of AN have a range of views on religion, so even if it was an issue where the bible had a clear view it would be stupid of me to assume that others on AN would automatically accept it.

[The Flying Tench]

Sorry, I didn't get the quotes right. In the last post the second para in bold is a reply by me, not part of Fenboy's post that I'm quoting.

[Peter Waller]

I stand to be corrected, as I often do, but I vaguely remember a Biblical passage that said, in so many words, that animals were put on this earth for the use of man. This being the case the use of animals for food is perfectly acceptable.

 

However, the use of animals, the fox, as a subject for wanton killing is, perhaps, rather more subjective. I don't know the answer, but my conscience suggests that to kill for pleasure is wrong.

[trent.barbeler]

Seasons Greetings to All,

 

Well, ok, even the Christmas hunt and CA balls weren’t going to keep me away forever!?

 

Boxing Day Predators? Well I became one Boxing Day morning and the morning after that. Headache tablets were my chosen prey and didn't I half wolf em down. Along with around 2 litres of fresh orange juice.

 

Some interesting comments and opinions from all concerning the ethics of fox hunting not to mention the ethics from our present government!

 

Fenboy said;

 

 

“Mr Matthew, you say:

 

"I do think there is an element of class war in banning hunting but personally I think its nice to see the glove on the other hand - usually its the establishment trying to ban or regulate something the general population enjoy......"

 

So, why's it nice to see "the glove on the other hand"? Spite? Getting one over on the other side? That's hardly the basis for law-making, I'd suggest...

 

Get real. This Government is systematically banning things other people enjoy. Angling won't be next, but it will be on the agenda within my lifetime. Don't gloat over "toffs" or "the establishment" getting their comeupance from "working class heroes".

 

Blair went to public school. He's a barrister, so's his missus. They're not of common stock.

 

Look at the bigger picture. New Labour are control freaks who want everybody to conform to their very narrow, very urban, point of view. ANgling simply doesn't fit in.

 

Get real."

 

Is Mr Blair a barrister? I knew he was a solicitor but was unaware he qualified at the bar?

 

Not so sure I'd 100% agree with you on certain instances there Fender's. Personally, I doubt that this present government sought out a ban on foxhunting due to spite or even because it strongly disagreed with the practice. (I draw your attention to our PM's none voting stance on the foxhunting issue) Or indeed due to the “toff” factor? I believe that the government actually used what it originally saw as a vote winner to placate its back-benchers into supporting other in-house issues it wanted forced through. I believe the government also originally saw the fox hunting issue as a no loose situation. It assumed the nation would back such a ban emphatically (possibly ensuring another land slide victory at the polls next time around?) whilst at the same keeping a majority of its troublesome back benchers in line? In short, working politics practised in full? They all do it you know. How many of the electorate actually bothered to turn up at the last general election Fender’s? Certainly a testament of at least one of these government policies that the electorate didn’t seem to bother to turn out to vote for? So much for the nations will that fox hunting should be outlawed perhaps?

 

Of course there has been, as is always the case, side spin off's concerning this political manoeuvring? Moves like certain MP's making a big noise about the issue on either side of the fox hunting fence for egotistical reasons? Like the anti-fox hunting crew getting mobilised riding behind the moves made in parliament. And moves like the creation of the CA in order to mobilise pro-hunting opinion in order to fight the ban effectively. Another side-spin to this issue of course was for our own angling political organisation in the form of NAA to "enter into agreement" (I use this term loosely) with the CA in the form of the MOU (Memorandum Of Understanding) so that angling (that’s "US" by the way) would look after angling's interest whilst the CA looked after its "own" interests which was originally conceived to be "hunting" and other forms of recognised "field sports".

 

So from the original for or against fox hunting issue, "WE" got inadvertently dragged into the issue because the CA didn't appear to stay on its side of the fence which the MOU was drawn up to hopefully build. On the announcement of the MOU, I opposed it totally because it drew us closer to the issue as I never believed the CA would stay silent on angling issues anyway. Also, its creation and the CA manoeuvres after that, always ensured that the anti-fox hunting/anti-angling/anti-shooting/anti-falconry/anti-anything you can mention would also "USE" the creation of the MOU "AND" what followed afterwards as a weapon against us. Why? The resulting failure of the MOU demonstrated clearly that "angling" (us) wielded no power over the CA as has already been seen many times since as the CA issued statement after statement supposedly on behalf of angling. Quite a few barking puppies on the fringe of angling politics saw all this coming and said as much on internet sites at the time.

 

So you see, angling "has" been sucked into this issue whether it likes it or not. But the really dangerous aspect for "us" in the future is our enemies now see us for what we are; Fragmented, un-funded, and dangerously weak to withstand any determined attack on our existence should such an attack be backed by any government of the day as is the case with fox hunting presently. Remember, we/angling is seemingly backed by this government at the moment. But is there any chance such future backing might be withdrawn if such a move “might” win votes? Or am I being so cynical to suggest that any political party might dare to go back on agreements given or change opinions once held?

 

3 million anglers you might say? (Personally I think the figure would double that in none license figured reality?) They wouldn't dare take us on you might say? Fenboy is absolutely right when he highlights the other 60 million out there. They hold opinions that can easily be swayed by clever propaganda AND, there "are" presently many sitting on the back benches of parliament with all sorts of hidden agendas. And that’s on all sides of the house by the way and is definitely NOT restricted to the labour ones either!

 

From my many "reliable" sources, I know that shooting (driven reared type shooting) is next on the anti-agenda when, if, foxhunting gets totally outlawed. Like foxhunting, these anti's see reared and driven shooting as another easy target because it feels it can once again, get this governments backing if it can again stir up a general populace against the practise as it cleverly did with fox hunting. How many of our nation's residents actually eat game birds? How many line up and watch such shoots on any sort of regular basis? Of course they don't and will no doubt because of this fact, fall easy prey to familiar tactics?

 

Contrary to certain "popular" held beliefs, the CA wasn't formed just to fight the fox hunting ban. It was primarily formed to protect "ALL" forms of field sports over its whole spectrum. The numbers of shooters for example in CA actually dwarf those involved in fox hunting but even so the major shooting organisations throw their members weight behind the CA. Clever anti-foxhunting propaganda won't tell you this which I suppose forms the rules of combat in the for and against propaganda war.

 

It is my personally held belief, the CA has handled the argument "for" foxhunting very badly. Its pest control argument was at best, poorly structured, inaccurate and a straw they were never going to float any argument upon. At this point I should tell you that I've been out at night with experts in fox control who use high powered rifles to kill foxes and this method is silent and extremely deadly. I doubt that the fox ever hears the crack of the rifle. So how can traditional fox hunting compare to these rifles for any effective, no pain, no stress method of pest control? It can't.

 

They would have been far better off arguing a point that the whole nation would understand. Freedom is what they understand. Freedom is what generations of their family members have fought for. Freedom is something every family takes for granted admittedly most of the time, but is something they cherish above all else when the line gets thin.

 

UK Angling generally or as a whole entity remains its own worse enemy. It’s not a case of apathy as most angling politicos would have you believe. But more over a gross case of fragmentation that many politicos themselves helped to create in the first place. Yes admittedly, there are a few brave political men in angling striving towards a united UK anglers base but not nearly enough to get the job done. Sadly, we still remain dreadfully fragmented.

 

So if I can see this, and at least four others posting on just this one thread, how many anti-anglers out there can see exactly the same thing? The truth is, the anti's have been carefully watching us for many years now and know only too well all of our failings, all of our weaknesses. If any government of the day chose to rid our nation of catch and release type angling, our enemies would walk straight into bastion angling extremely easy. Germany? No need to look that far. Legally held hand guns should have been an effective warning.

 

The MOU?

 

Fox hunting was, always the "bridge too far" for political angling to cross. They saw no way forward in trying to convince their collective memberships that a vote for possibly joining foxhunting in defence of "their" particular blood sport might be a good thing for "them" when their own castle ramparts become besieged. A popular phrase I heard regularly was "We must distance ourselves from something that the nation regards as disgusting". Another one was “We can fight our own battles. We are big enough and don't need the stigma of blood sports attached to our sport". Fair points?

 

I wonder, if fox hunting finally goes forever, and shooting becomes the anti's campaign of the day, backed by the government of the day, what will angling say if it gets asked for help to fight the shooters battles? I have little doubt that if everything remains the same in our camp politically, blood sports will again be a bridge to far for us to cross. Right move?

 

Withstanding Peters hatred for the CA's meddling in "our" angling affairs, (which was always going to happen anyway Peter after the MOU?) one has to admit that the CA have done a pretty good job, given the unfortunate labour government majority of anti-hunters on its back benches, in taking on said government on behalf of its fox hunting members for all the perceived mistakes it made. They have been extremely well organised and have reached right into the halls of power perhaps unlike any other field sports organisation before. And isn't it interesting that the police have announced it would be unable to police any such ban on hunting and the government in turn announced it wouldn't be enforcing the February deadline straight away!! Crikey. When does the foxhunting season end anyway chaps? I shouldn't think there will be any fox hunting in their close season anyway! So what’s there to police and what’s to enforce until next September anyway? And if this government fail at the elections next year and the Tories win, fox hunting continues. Then Mr Blair wobbles off to the European parliament saying, “Of course I never supported the ban anyway because I abstained from the votes”. Clearly shows how much the PM regards this particular issue with his lack of support for it?

 

Not that long ago, wintery hunting scenes used to appear on Christmas biscuit tins or Christmas card scenes. Jolly chaps in red coats jousting through lanes and fields covered in snow, or taking the "cup" outside a jolly country pub with its thatched roof covered in snow. Good old days when like Fenders said, "we were a nation of tolerant people who loved the eccentric traits of English life". How far we have all travelled since those days. Yes, many will herald the ban on fox hunting as being a force for good in our land. Good for whom? The fox? To begin with yes, but sadly not in the long term I fear. Good for angling maybe because we refused to back this "blood sport"? In who's eyes though? Well, the same elements shouting from the rooftops about banning fox hunting want to see an end to shooting and our sport as well. They certainly won't be rewarding our abstinence in this battle that’s for sure. They merely take our none support as a sign of weakness. Will the majority of our nations none anglers support us when the calls come to ban angling? I believe like Germany, our countrymen and women will start to believe all the anti-angling propaganda if it’s good enough showing us all in a bad light. They have done much the same thing with fox hunting seeing as the majority of them have never seen a fox hunt anyway?

 

Again for the record, I am neither for, nor against fox hunting. But given the choice or chance to actually vote in any fox hunting referendum, I’d vote in favour of keeping it. Why? Simple. Generations of my family like your own fought and died to preserve our freedoms, our right to choose. They did not fight or die for foxes. Or at least, none of my family members did to my knowledge. By the same token, I'd vote to keep shooting in all its forms for the very same reason. And everything else that involves preserving freedoms and rights to choose. Some will have their right to say this issue has nothing to do with fighting wars for freedom but remains a simple issue of cruelty to an animal. In the short instance this of course is true, but in the long term it serves to draw the line further in eroding our freedoms in my view. In some circles its almost become fashionable to be involved in banning something.

 

Yes, fox hunting remains a contentious issue for some. Many will not speak their mind over issues to do with “animal rights” out of some sort of political correctness. Many will speak their minds out of passionate belief in a foxes right to live out its life without being hunted by packs of dogs. Many will rightly also defend their own way of life, right to the extent of defending hunting a fox with packs of hounds. That’s what freedom is, or should be, all about.

 

For me though, the issue is not about hunting foxes, or the legal ownership of handguns, or the right to shoot driven game birds or anything else to do with threats of banning all forms of field sports, or our fishing ways. It’s about the preservation of freedoms we all too often take for granted. Rights to choose that we never question in our everyday lives.

 

Freedom’s and right’s to choose remains the issue for me because I see threats to these basic rights being eroded every day in our land. My fear is that these threats will continue to grow until our social structure and ways of life disappear forever.

 

And sooner or later, we “WILL” be forced to draw a line in the sand.

 

I rest now announcing I have no political affiliation to any party in the House of Commons what so ever. Aside from my local MP, I think they are all barking mad. Just a shame that there’s more madness on the labour benches. Probably because there are more of em!!

 

Regards and tally-ho,

 

Lee.

 

PS. Blimey! Thats a long un even for me!!! Should keep Bruno up a bit longer though.

 

After reading this dross, I decided to edit it. Well, thats not strictly true, er, add something to it down here. Which coincidentally has absolutely nothing to do with the threads topic. Here goes then;

 

Dear Peter (Waller),

 

Sincere thanks for your looped message of Christmas goodwill to myself and the family. Of course, others in the loop received this gracious message as well.

 

I didn't want to reply to the message and the whole loop collectively so as not to appear to be a "suck-butt". So, I thought I'd reply to your goodself singularyryryry...on your tod. Then I thought no. I'll reply on-line instead so all can read the spirit of Christmas lives on even in the most argumentative of us.

 

Thank you Peter for your message of goodwill. May I in turn wish you and your good lady all the health and happiness this coming new year can bring. Indeed, the same is wished for all your family and friends.

 

And going further, may your coracle withstand the Norfolk climes for many years to come.

 

Wifey says its time for bed soon as she's noticed the level in the Irish bottle is way down the mark she cleverly left on it.

 

Only hope she doesn't notice its a different bottle!!

 

[ 29. December 2004, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: trent.barbeler ]

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Peter,

 

Not of course wishing to "nit-pick", you said;

 

"I stand to be corrected, as I often do, but I vaguely remember a Biblical passage that said, in so many words, that animals were put on this earth for the use of man. This being the case the use of animals for food is perfectly acceptable."

 

The Bible actually depicts animals being extensively used as "beasts of burden" Peter far more than they ever did for culinary purposes surely. (Your field this one Rev John?)

 

Bible aside.

 

Hunting with dogs actually began pre-Biblical times right across the Biblical region with Saluki dog’s right up to this day. So did falconry. Won't go into the Roman "sport hunting" practices but highlight such practices were enjoyed extensively way before the Romans came upon the region. Indeed, way after the death/resurrection of Jesus hunting for sport continued right up until this day across the region.

 

Not quite Sainsbury's when one looks at hunting's roots and men in funny red coats are a mere blink of an eye in the hunting time scale. Seems like hunting for sport has been in mans blood for thousands of years. Blimey. All those years and this government thinks it can wipe out all this hunting instinct in a few short years?

 

But we have Morrisons up here so have no need to shoot anything for sport/food. Then again, buying a Morrisons dressed ready for the oven cockerel does have its moments. After its purchase one is entirely free to kick it clear across the car park to see how far it can fly without feathers.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[beezer]

Issn't it time we all stopped being such hipocrites We all hunt wether it 's for that specimen fish or for a fox. I'm sure that fish suffer just as much stress being out of water as a fox does being chased by hounds. I have poultry and have lost a number of duck and hens to foxes. If we kept the hens in where charley can't get at them where would free range eggs come from. WE need to control their numbers, especialy when towney dogooders are releasing foxes into the countryside that have no hope of surviveing without taking from farmyards

[kleinboet]

Beezer - In answer to your posting.

 

We are not hypocrites. The main difference being that ANGLERS always attempt to return any fish UNHARMED back to the water.

 

I have been laughing to myself as I have a mental picture of the hunt stopping hunting, taking the fox they have been hunting, checking it over for injuries and then allowing it to recover to an extent where it can be returned to its natural habitat.

 

As to your remarks about needing to control their numbers, I will come back to that but would like to say that people who have tried to do just that but responsibly, are stopped from doing just that. Read the archives and you will see how people on THIS site have been treated for shooting foxes!

 

Why do we need to control their numbers, do we control our own numbers? We want to control them because they are killing OUR livestock - my turn to say get real! - we have upset the normal nature not the fox.

 

And, while we are on the subject, if we allow this barbaric (thats what it is) "tradition" to continue - what are these people going to do when foxes are extinct, hunt cats?

[Peter Waller]

Thanks for your thanks Lee, appreciated.

 

I won't take your super long epistle bit by bit, only to say that I agree with it all in principle, if not in fine detail, nor in any form of support for the CA.

 

Yes, shooters will be next in line. I have always stated that I would support any sound alliance between guns and rods.

[Dick Dastardly]

"I have always stated that I would support any sound alliance between guns and rods."

 

I think I could go for that to Peter,I have never liked the thought of hunting with dogs and therefore have always thought it best if angling wasnt percieved as being in bed with fox hunting.

 

As Ive said though even though I cant bring myself to actively support the actual act of fox hunting I would support their right of personal choice.

 

Do others find themselves torn between this one?

[The Flying Tench]

Peter Waller:

I stand to be corrected, as I often do, but I vaguely remember a Biblical passage that said, in so many words, that animals were put on this earth for the use of man. This being the case the use of animals for food is perfectly acceptable.

I suspect you're thinking of Genesis 1:28-30, but it doesn't specify eating. But there are plenty of other less general verses, such as Exodus 12:8.