I despair at the need of most people for “titillation” from cruelty. As evidenced by the popularity of the News, which offers everyone, a ringside seat to the cruelty of life in glorious live action Technicolor.
Banning the News (or such negatively biased reporting) would actually make a positive difference, unlike banning fox hunting.
1. Is fox hunting cruel? Some people think it is, others don’t. It would be interesting to see (I have no info on this) how long fox hunting has been considered cruel by significant numbers?
2. How much good it will do? (Banning it) I mean this in the grand scheme of things. When compared to how much good could have been achieved by focusing the countries limited resources (including pressure groups, protesters and fanatics) on other areas. Than again we could be living in a world where the worst that can happen is fox hunting.
What about the pain and suffering those who make their livelihood servicing the hunts will now endure? What about the enormous loss of life the hounds and horses will now endure?
At least it's another nail in Labour's coffin. And don't hold up single instances of manifesto pledges as being the platform on which a party got elected by a minority of the people.
This was never about cruelty - because more cruelty will ensue when farmers are forced to trap, poison and shoot foxes - it's always been a class issue. Hurrah for the great unwashed!
I don't believe for a minute that hunters will kill their animals out of spite. I would hope that most horses will find new owners, but most of the hounds will die because they can't be rehomed and they can't be retrained once they've been hunted. What happens on a drag hunt when former fox-hunting hounds get a fox scent?
I think I agree that hunting isn't entirely about keeping fox numbers down, although it does have some effect. I am curious as to why shooting is more "humane" and I think the concept of "humane" is actually the heart of the whole issue - a fox being killed by dogs is actually more natural than it being shot, after all. Perhaps we could retrain the hunters as marksmen and they could gallop around and shoot the foxes and hopefully not any of their stepchildren by mistake while they're at it?
As for holding parties to account, isn't that the whole problem with our political system? You can't.
The thing is that it isn't about what a human thinks is an acceptable way to die, although that's what fox sympathizers are projecting onto the animals.
And I disagree about accountability, especially where the media is concerned. You can't tell me you believe a single thing reported in the media these days, surely? It's all distorted, if not made up completely. When you say accountable to constituents, accountable to the largest minority of constituents would be more accurate. Not sure that being accountable through their party is worth a damn either. But I've said it often enough, we don't live in a democracy, we live in an oligarchy.
Bit late entering this debate, but I can't quite understand why anyone would keep a horse *just* to hunt. Surely there are other aspects of riding and horsemanship they must enjoy? I can't quite get my head round the argument that because you can't spend every Saturday chasing a fox across the countryside you're going to have to sell or shoot your horse. As for the hounds, obviously in the short term it is perhaps sad that they will be shot, but seeing as I don't know many retired foxhounds anyway...
Not at all, and I would be delighted if the hunt supporters would be compassionate enough to provide for existing foxhounds until the natural end of their days; I would be more than happy to contribute to a retirement utopia for them, as I'm sure would many other members of the ignorant city masses. The foxhounds do not need to hunt foxes in order to surive - it's not like saying we should save antelope and let lions starve. Claiming that either the fox must die or the hound is false logic as far as I'm concerned. It is up to each hunt to decide whether their dogs are important enough to continue to provide for, or whether they are just an expendable tool. Bit like greyhound racing really. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that hounds were disposed of as soon as they had stopped being useful anyway?
Surely the foxhounds do need to hunt foxes in order to survive if they are disposed of as soon as they stop being useful?
The foxes are going to die anyway, and more "cruelly" than ever before. Those supporting a hunting ban are responsible for the needless deaths of the hounds as well as the growth in fox suffering that will follow.
Pain and suffering can be caused in oh so many ways, some would argue this as a pleasure rather than cruelty. So I would say that cruelty is in the eyes of the beholder and probably the receiver.
Life, the world and nature itself is not fair. So to seek equality is unnatural. We are apart of the world and nature, not separate and we should accept inequality as a natural consequence.
I know what you are saying, that banning fox hunting moves us a step towards a more caring society. This is probably in line with the evolution of society, though we do suffer relapses.
However, we are also exploiting other countries to achieve this freedom to be so enlightened. Such issues as child labour have gone from our own shores so we can afford to focus on the smaller issues that we (as a society) are beginning to class as undesirable.
On the cruelty scale I would put the issues in other countries as far above those of a handful of foxes. Perhaps if we were more proactive and less tolerant of such gross abuses of basic existence we might move to do something about it.
Going back to fox hunting, I would consider more cruelty is done to animal kind by zoos and people abusing their pets. Add to that child cruelty and I don’t see fox hunting as worthy of such outrage.
I bet that they'd be appalled by the suggestion that gangs of town-folk dress-up in fancy costumes and ride through the streets and local gardens on dirt-bikes, whilst tooting fog-horns and setting packs of dobermans on local stray cats.
Aha, so you've visited the High Peak, then?
I'd prefer a return to the days where we could ride around and shoot trespassers on our land, actually.
Property, livestock, livelihood - and not potential, actual. I think shooting them in the knees would save everyone a lot of time - they wouldn't need to walk and leave gates open and throw rubbish about and worry livestock with their dogs and complain about barns not being the right colour and electric fencing not being aesthetic. When is one human's pleasure worth more than another's livelihood?
Previous
