|
Post by Yann on Nov 1, 2009 0:03:00 GMT 1
Huh?? ;D
|
|
|
Post by kt with Hanni on Nov 1, 2009 1:11:15 GMT 1
Yann - :-), I am on your wave length on this one :-)
|
|
|
Post by RiP Its A Matter Of Principle on Nov 1, 2009 7:52:54 GMT 1
A comment from the Horse and Hound DG - I have only recently found out about this and I am really disappointed. People don't all have to agree but to express their position on hunting by supporting an association such as the Hunt Sabs is very misplaced and the surely haven't done their research. Having been at the receiving end on a number of occasions of the Sabs attempts at protecting the fox including being pulled from my horse aged 12, witnessing a friends horse having it's front leg broken when a gate was slammed on it by sabs and being in the field on that fateful day when a hound had acid thrown at it, I cannot bring myself to shop in Lush until they openly stop their support of this association which attracts some of the worst members of society to its' cause. I don't think anyone particularly would mind that Lush is anti-hunting, it is their support of this particular association which is upsetting everyone. I just read this post and iam sickened acid thrown over the hound, front legs of a horse broken, then a 12yr old pulled off a horse? I am sickened by this world really am!
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Nov 1, 2009 9:48:43 GMT 1
So am I. But my point is that the actions of particular sabs, however vile, don't mean that the organisation being supported by Lush either encourages or endorses that type of behaviour.
It's the same as suggesting the CA supports beating sabs up because quite a few huntsmen and hunt supporters have been convicted of acts of violence against them.
|
|
natalia
Grand Prix Poster
Posts: 2,103
|
Post by natalia on Nov 1, 2009 10:01:18 GMT 1
alex- what about the recent case in the news? Hunt sabs MURDER supporter with aircraft. www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/392/290197.html (although they are trying to get them done for manslaughter) I can't believe anyone would be this bothered for the sake of a few mangey foxes! Its pathetic!
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Nov 1, 2009 11:52:36 GMT 1
You could very much use that argument in the other direction too. A lot of people go hunting because it's a blast, the horses love it and you get to ride in all sorts of places that aren't normally accessible. Being able to kill something isn't exactly central to most people's enjoyment of the day.
|
|
|
Post by clara81 on Nov 1, 2009 20:11:42 GMT 1
What's the point of Hunt Sabs anyway? They've already got it banned! I like Lush stuff but I also whole heartedly support hunting. I think I'll just not buy the specific anti-hunting soap.
Modified to add that according to previous posts the Hunt supporters seem to have only harmed the sabs, who choose to be there, where they are not invited or welcome, and cause trouble. Whereas the sabs have no qualms about attacking the horses and hounds, which is just sick and proves who the real animal lovers are...
|
|
|
Post by jamesb on Nov 2, 2009 0:28:52 GMT 1
Although I love riding, I have little or no interest in hunting.
However, in general I would never seek to proscribe what others may or may not do. If you don't like hunting, don't go! What gives the HSA and LACS the 'right' to dictate to huntspeople, simply because the latter's activities do not accord with the anti-hunting fraternity's beliefs? Such a matter ought to be left to personal choice and has nothing to do with legislation - IMO the Hunting Act is a politically spiteful piece of legislation that relates to outmoded concepts of 'class war'. In fact I would happily lay odds that many of the HSA's membership also belong to Class War and other extremist left-wing organisations!
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Nov 2, 2009 8:33:30 GMT 1
No, it's about animal welfare and the wilful terrorising and destruction of animals for entertainment. People view it on a par with badger baiting and dog fighting, and that's why they object to it.
It's not about pest control since hunts encourage a 'healthy' fox population on their land to ensure there's always plenty of 'sport'.
|
|
|
Post by touchstone on Nov 2, 2009 9:08:15 GMT 1
I agree with Yann 100% on this, and I am not one for saying what others should or shouldn't do, but somebody has to speak up for the fair treatment of so called 'mangy foxes.'
There are also people out there who hate horses, and when an abuse case is highlighted on here there is an outcry (and rightly so), but at the end of the day a horse is an animal the same as a fox so why should we turn a blind eye to cruel treatment of one and not of the other?
Hunting may provide a great day out for some but personally I couldn't take pleasure in chasing another conscious being that feels fear, pain and distress to its demise. If people are happy with having that on their consciense then that's up to them, however I could never condone it.
|
|
|
Post by K8 on Nov 2, 2009 9:45:57 GMT 1
Hunting is the only NATURAL way of controlling the fox population, they have no natural preditors because man killed them all!! shooting.. VERY likely to get maimed an die a long agonising death, gas.. Indescriminate, trap.. Again indescriminate and a long painful death, Hounds do not rip a fox to pieces, the fox is killed quickly and cleanly, by one bite to the back of the foxes neck, breaking it's neck. Having a field following doesn't change things for the fox. It's all about the hounds vs the fox. It also cleans up the fox population. Hounds can not catch a healthy fox! Which is in my opinion natures choice.
Just to add.. I'm not evil and I love animals. I have done a lot of research about this, listened and learnt about both sides and I stand by what I say.
|
|
|
Post by touchstone on Nov 2, 2009 12:48:57 GMT 1
And that is your opinion to which you are entitled, however I can't agree with it! For me the fact that the fox is killed is not the worst part - it is the chase and the fact that it is classed as sport. As for natural predators, it is unlikely that wolves for example would control the fox population as they tend to prey on other prey animals rather than other predators and because man killed all the wolves off anyway is perhaps a reason to question how we interact with our natural environment instead of simply taking it upon ourselves to become the ultimate predator. The fact is that the hunts don't have a huge impact on fox numbers, many more are killed on the roads, and a healthy fox population is required by the hunt to preserve the numbers for sport, which brings into question the effectiveness for control purposes. Link here:- www.wildlifeonline.me.uk/red_fox.html"Predators: Foxes typically have very few true predators, because predators rarely eat other predators. Most cases where other larger carnivores kill foxes it is typically done to remove a competitor. Nonetheless, in some instances -- especially where cubs are taken -- the carcass may be consumed. In the UK foxes have only one natural predator, the Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), which is restricted to the Highlands of Scotland and isolated patches of northern England (e.g. Cumbria). According to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Golden eagles can lift a maximum of four or five kilograms (9 – 11 lbs) – adult male foxes average around 7kg (15 ½ lbs), while females average 5 ½ kg (12 lbs), suggesting that only young foxes are taken by these raptors. The occasional fox is dispatched by a hunting party or is shot by landowners, while a vast majority die on Britain’s roads." As for healthy foxes always gettting away, I can't agree with that either! Certainly in cubbing they aren't old or sick but are killed just the same. They also have earths stopped up and terriers sent down, so hardly a fair contest really! If shooting always maims and never kills, then I think you have to seriously question all shooting - if someone is unable to get a clean shot at a fairly large target then they shouldn't be in control of a gun and a clean shot would be much quicker than a prolonged chase for hours on end. They aren't all killed by a "nip to the bacck of the neck either" from the Burns report:- 'The evidence which we have seen suggests that, in the case of the killing of a fox by hounds above ground, death is not always effected by a single bite to the neck or shoulders by the leading hound resulting in the dislocation of the cervical vertebrae. In a proportion of cases it results from massive injuries to the chest and vital organs' [Burns Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs] In this case, in February 1999 a hunted fox was saved from the hounds and taken to Richard Edwards, a vet. He concluded that the animal would have died had it not been treated, not from its injuries but instead as a result of pathological stress caused by its being hunted. The fox had suffered severe bite marks across its body, but had none to its neck.
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Nov 2, 2009 13:56:47 GMT 1
Yes, it's amazing how effective shooting is as a method of pest control for anything other than foxes. I used to know someone who regularly went shooting, and they deliberately avoided dispatching foxes on hunt land at the request of the landowners.
|
|
|
Post by K8 on Nov 2, 2009 14:03:26 GMT 1
Agree to disagree i think is the only way forward with this debate! People have strong opinions on both sides, i won't change your mind, and you won't change mine.. so we'll have to leave it at that i think!! :0)
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Nov 2, 2009 14:21:33 GMT 1
I agree with Yann 100% on this, and I am not one for saying what others should or shouldn't do, but somebody has to speak up for the fair treatment of so called 'mangy foxes.' There are also people out there who hate horses, and when an abuse case is highlighted on here there is an outcry (and rightly so), but at the end of the day a horse is an animal the same as a fox so why should we turn a blind eye to cruel treatment of one and not of the other? Hunting may provide a great day out for some but personally I couldn't take pleasure in chasing another conscious being that feels fear, pain and distress to its demise. If people are happy with having that on their consciense then that's up to them, however I could never condone it. Seeing as this has now moved onto killing foxes!! I am in total agreement with touchstone. I was not aware that foxes were encouraged so they were 'available' but after knowing about pheasants being bred to be shot and then buried , I'm not a bit surprised!! Also 'the foxes have no predators' argument is a non starter imo, they are at the top of a food chain and therefore do not have or never did have predators. They do and did have competitors though and if left to their own devices food supply would dictate numbers.
|
|