i just had a fox hunting debate...

[boys_beastie]

with this girl and she kept saying that it's right to brutally slaughter and mutilate foxes in that way and that its a tradition, and no one cares about fishing, but how does that even compare?! the fish don teven die! :confused:

now i agree we need to keep foxes numbers down (even though theyve never had a chance to show they would actually multiply and destroy the english country sides food chain) but this isnt right and for a tiny fraction of the uks money i think a solution could be found.

she kept saying that the money should go to africa and world poverty, now firstly the amount it would cost to abolish fox hunting and find an easy solution at this day in age would be unnoticiable in englands funds, and secondly our taxes and lotto money just go to financial disasters like the london eye and the millenium dome anyway.

she then said that i was being ideallistic to think that a solution could be found even though she said the funds should go to africa(not idealistic?) which obviously wont happen anytime soon from tony blair.

then she ended with saying 'im not being idealistic im just saying that if the money would go anywhere it would be on africa not frikin foxes'

but like i said, if tony blair is going to ban hunting, he needs to find a solution incase there is inflation in the fox population otherwise its just half a job AND the amount it would cost to solve this problem if fractional and would have barely any effect on africa anyway.

im sorry if that doesnt make toom much sense but im tired and pissed off. what do you think on the situation?

[Ace42X]

I think banning fox hunting is an encroachment on civil liberties. Fox hunting kills how many foxes a year? What about the number of animals that die on roads? Are we going to tell people who enjoy driving to movies, sports events, etc that they are cruel for letting animals die to facilitate their own entertainment?

What about golf? Golf-courses can take up acres of habitat, and yet no-one says "it's cruel that hundreds of thousands of animals have to die just so you can hit a ball around."

What about polluted rivers? What about Giant factories? What about strip-mines?

Or, more importantly, what about the millions of *people* dying in misery all over the world?

Pah, nuts to foxes.

[QueenAdrock]

no one cares about fishing, but how does that even compare?! the fish don teven die! :confused:

Maybe not the fishing you do. I catch them and fry them and eat them, after hacking their little fishy heads off and gutting them.

Unless they're too small. I caught a little baby catfish in my uncle's lake up in NY, and he was like "Oooh, that's too small to eat, but the population in the lake is too big. Just leave it on a tree stump for some racoons." But not only did I leave it on a tree stump, I shoved a hotdog I wasn't going to eat in its mouth first. That raccoon feasted like a king that night.

[QueenAdrock]

I think banning fox hunting is an encroachment on civil liberties. Fox hunting kills how many foxes a year? What about the number of animals that die on roads? Are we going to tell people who enjoy driving to movies, sports events, etc that they are cruel for letting animals die to facilitate their own entertainment?

What about golf? Golf-courses can take up acres of habitat, and yet no-one says "it's cruel that hundreds of thousands of animals have to die just so you can hit a ball around."

What about polluted rivers? What about Giant factories? What about strip-mines?


I agree somewhat, I always find it sad when a new road is put in and there are dead animals on the side of the road who were hit by cars.

However, with driving to the movies and such, there's a difference between plowing down forests and making roads for driving, and outright killing animals. The roads are needed, and serve a purpose. The main purpose was not to kill the animals for entertainment, it was needed for transportation. Hunting's main purpose is to kill animals for entertainment. Those are two different things. Where would you draw the line? The house you live in must have taken away animal's homes, so does the road you drive on, and the food you eat must have killed animals too. But for some reason, I see that as different from going around and shooting animals and "outwitting" them for entertainment value.


Or, more importantly, what about the millions of *people* dying in misery all over the world?

Yeah, but no one's going around and shooting these people for sport. Poverty and hunger are a sad situation, and I think *everyone* would like to see that abolished if it were possible. Two different situations again. If I saw some asshole dressed up in a camoflage outfit, who took away what little food a Somalian had in order to then come out of hiding and bag their bodies up to go take to the taxidermist once they died, then hunger would be the same situation.

Not to say that money shouldn't be spent for poverty, just saying they can't be compared.

[EN[i]GMA]

Who cares?

Do you eat meat or not?

Even if you don't, who cares?

[ChrisLove]

with this girl and she kept saying that it's right to brutally slaughter and mutilate foxes in that way and that its a tradition, and no one cares about fishing, but how does that even compare?! the fish don teven die! :confused:

now i agree we need to keep foxes numbers down (even though theyve never had a chance to show they would actually multiply and destroy the english country sides food chain) but this isnt right and for a tiny fraction of the uks money i think a solution could be found.

she kept saying that the money should go to africa and world poverty, now firstly the amount it would cost to abolish fox hunting and find an easy solution at this day in age would be unnoticiable in englands funds, and secondly our taxes and lotto money just go to financial disasters like the london eye and the millenium dome anyway.

she then said that i was being ideallistic to think that a solution could be found even though she said the funds should go to africa(not idealistic?) which obviously wont happen anytime soon from tony blair.

then she ended with saying 'im not being idealistic im just saying that if the money would go anywhere it would be on africa not frikin foxes'

but like i said, if tony blair is going to ban hunting, he needs to find a solution incase there is inflation in the fox population otherwise its just half a job AND the amount it would cost to solve this problem if fractional and would have barely any effect on africa anyway.

im sorry if that doesnt make toom much sense but im tired and pissed off. what do you think on the situation?

I think your friend makes some very valid point and on the whole I agree with her. I think a lot of people get pissed off with the fox hunting debate because its probably really a class issue.

Us humans do far more horrific things to animals and other human beings than this, as Ace points out there is detruction of habitat and also there are sports like fishing. A sport where the objct is to pierce a creatures mouth with a hook and then have two hour barbaric struggle/tug of war until the creature is too exhausted to fight any more and finally surcobs to being dragged out of the water and suffocated or bludgeoned to death.

It just seems to me that people oppose animal cruelty in the case of fox hunting because posh people do it whereas good ol fanshioned working class cruelty like fishing is fine.

Also a lot of Horses and dogs gonna die if you ban fox hunting too, a lot of jobs lost (possibly) which is where your lost funds come from.

Yea fuck foxes.

At the end of the day this is really a bit of a non issue - fox hunting gets an unbelieveably disporportionate amount of media coverage.

[Ace42X]

However, with driving to the movies and such, there's a difference between plowing down forests and making roads for driving, and outright killing animals. The roads are needed, and serve a purpose. The main purpose was not to kill the animals for entertainment, it was needed for transportation.

And yet, how many people limit their journies to purely *necessary* trips? How is killing animals by driving on roads, purely because you feel your need for entertainment outweighs the suffering it can cause, any different?

I'm not saying roads are bad, or the game of golf is. But in terms of animal suffering, roads kill a lot more per annum, and destruction of habitat has a much greater impact. One dead fox is one dead fox, loss of habitat will never sustain those animals again.

Hunting's main purpose is to kill animals for entertainment. Those are two different things. Where would you draw the line? The house you live in must have taken away animal's homes, so does the road you drive on, and the food you eat must have killed animals too. But for some reason, I see that as different from going around and shooting animals and "outwitting" them for entertainment value.

See, you put the emphasis on intent. Given the frivolity of measuring animal suffering (given that all animals suffer to some degree, that is innate in the cruelness of nature. From fleas up to being eaten) I'd much rather put the emphasis on something quantative like numbers.

Not to say that money shouldn't be spent for poverty, just saying they can't be compared.

But they can. Both require resources to protest and enforce. I find wasting time and resources on a bunch of animals to be rather unimportant compared to the numerous problems that are effecting members of our own species.

When every human mouth is fed, and every human child protected, by all means start on protecting animals. Until then, priorities.

Don't get me wrong, I abhor inflicting unnecessary suffering on anything, but while there is suffering in the world, let's not waste a second on the animals and concentrate on the people.

In the words of Monty Burns - "Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to call uncle because she is losing? Pishposh."

[boys_beastie]

its probably really a class issue.

that did come into the debate, and i agree.

A sport where the objct is to pierce a creatures mouth with a hook and then have two hour barbaric struggle/tug of war until the creature is too exhausted to fight any more and finally surcobs to being dragged out of the water and suffocated or bludgeoned to death.

i do agree, but that's only in half the cases.

It just seems to me that people oppose animal cruelty in the case of fox hunting because posh people do it whereas good ol fanshioned working class cruelty like fishing is fine.

im not denying that fishing is distressing for a fish, but when someone goes fishing they dont go out with an intent to hurt a fish. a lot of fishing pool owners banned barbed hooks because it was unfair, and a lot of fishers don't use them.

Also a lot of Horses and dogs gonna die if you ban fox hunting too, a lot of jobs lost (possibly) which is where your lost funds come from.

how would jobs be lost? its a pass-time. the only one i can tihnk of is a stable-runner. but they'd still have other animals to look after and i doubt they all pay tax anyway.

plus, we've already gone half way and restricted fox hunting so why do a half assed job?

i agree, if the money should go anywhere its on world poverty not foxes, but 1. i dont think this will happen anytime soon from tony blair and 2. the amount of money it would cost, like i said, would be fractional.

[Medellia]

It just seems to me that people oppose animal cruelty in the case of fox hunting because posh people do it whereas good ol fanshioned working class cruelty like fishing is fine.
Most people who go fishing eat the fish though. Granted I don't live in the UK so I don't know a whole lot about fox hunting, but I doubt the foxes are eating afterwards. Sounds like killing just for the sake of killing. (n)

[boys_beastie]

exactly. the person i spoke to about it said that they do it for the thill of the chase and to socialise. im sure there are more humane ways of doing this. they should just make a game called SIM FOXHUNT 3000.

[Funkaloyd]

Should recreational fishermen be required by law to eat their catch? Should stuffing fish and mounting them on walls be banned?

[boys_beastie]

no

/

yes (but only if the original intent when going out to fish isnt to put it back or eat it but to have it stuffed)

[Ace42X]

What if the dogs eat the fox?

[Ali]

but I doubt the foxes are eating afterwards. Sounds like killing just for the sake of killing. (n)The dogs are eating the fox afterwards.

It's a sport, like baseball, except it's like using a hamster instead of a ball.

Toffs loveit.

[ChrisLove]

Most people who go fishing eat the fish though. Granted I don't live in the UK so I don't know a whole lot about fox hunting, but I doubt the foxes are eating afterwards. Sounds like killing just for the sake of killing. (n)


I dont think throwing the fish back solves the problem of cruelty either - the fish is still being tortured fr entertainment.

Its no longer acceptable for people use dancing bears for street entertainment because of the torture it involves for the animal. If the dancing bear is eaten at the end of the day it does not make any less cruel really (unless the people were really really hungry) eh? This is getting stupid – foxes are gay.

[boys_beastie]

well i used to fish, but stopped for the cuelty reason. but i still dont tihnk its on thr same scale as fox hunting. and the hounds dont eat the fox.

[Ali]

well i used to fish, but stopped for the cuelty reason. but i still dont tihnk its on thr same scale as fox hunting. Fishing is more cruel when you don't catch any fish. All that standing around, sweating/freezing/getting bitten and you don't catch anything... horrible.

I'm sure the hounds eat the fox. Maybe they don't actually swallow anything, but they definitely tear it to pieces.

[boys_beastie]

i know, thats the disgusting part.

[Ali]

i know, thats the disgusting part.It's fun for the hounds. And there are more hounds than foxes. So it would be more cruel to the hounds than the foxes if it were banned.

Dig?

Don't worry. Foxes will evolve the intelligence to lead the hounds onto the M25 and then watch the carnage from the other side!

[Ace42X]

and the hounds dont eat the fox.

They would if they were hungry enough.

[Ali]

They would if they were hungry enough.I hear they starve the hounds for weeks before the hunt and the trainers keep them in cages and poke them with sharp sticks while wearing Fox outfits with dead hound puppies round their necks to make them MEAN.

[boys_beastie]

:p

they probably do provoke them, to make them more angry, but not like that...

[Qdrop]

this thread is magnificient.


i'm gonna copy and paste this on file....and read it whenever i'm depressed to lift my spirits.

[sam i am]

foxes are gay.

This is one of the best lines ever. You should be a writer for Saturday Night Live, Chris. (y)

[sam i am]

I hear they starve the hounds for weeks before the hunt and the trainers keep them in cages and poke them with sharp sticks while wearing Fox outfits with dead hound puppies round their necks to make them MEAN.

LMAO. Maybe you and Chris should start a new comedy troupe : Call it "The Dead Fox Society." Tour the English countryside! Give the French something to laugh at other than Jerry Lewis! Go to Germany and depose David Hasselhoff from his throne! :p :D

[Ali]

LMAO. Maybe you and Chris should start a new comedy troupe : Call it "The Dead Fox Society." Tour the English countryside! Give the French something to laugh at other than Jerry Lewis! Go to Germany and depose David Hasselhoff from his throne! :p :DHave you seen Trigger Happy TV (http://www.triggerhappytv.com/frames.htm)?

Dom Joly is always doing shit like that. One time he and another bloke ran into a corner shop, dressed as squirrels, screaming "give us the Nuts" and grabbing packets of nuts off the shelves, then running out.

OK, you had to be there, but it was hysterical, at the time.

[sam i am]

Have you seen Trigger Happy TV (http://www.triggerhappytv.com/frames.htm)?

Dom Joly is always doing shit like that. One time he and another bloke ran into a corner shop, dressed as squirrels, screaming "give us the Nuts" and grabbing packets of nuts off the shelves, then running out.

OK, you had to be there, but it was hysterical, at the time.

Actually, that sounds rather funny. I laughed at your description.

[boys_beastie]

that was a funny episode. i guess the debate is voe now but oh well..' :rolleyes: