Bring Back Fox Hunting

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

The Burns report was produced before the ban. It is hardly a definitive study of how the hunting industry has fared since the act.

Which is the point I was making.............................

I think you have your contexts mixed up. The number of foxes being killed is not an indication of the method. In fact, more foxes are being killed by shooting, than by dogs. You are right though, that in the majority of cases the act is not being enforced.

The report, or rather the articles that the report refers to, infer that that as many foxes are being killed by hunts as before the ban, with the bans using the excuse that the hounds are latching onto scents of foxes and once that happens they can't stop them.

That is not the fault of the act itself, but by the lack of priority to which the various police forces around the UK place on its enforcement. That is caused by, in some part, a conflict of interest in some senior police officers. Around here, the local Chief Superintendent is a senior member of the hunt, there has been suggestions that the police ignore their behaviour because of his involvement. Nonetheless, any failures on the police's behalf is not any reason to ignore the law and does not make the Hunting Act wrong.

It's a sloppy law, brought in for the wrong reasons.

That is my only problem with it. It has not been brought in for the welfare of the fox. That's the bottom line.

And if it hasn't been brought in for that reason, then why introduce it.

It has been brought in for the wrong reasons and that is why I consider it wrong.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not the greatest piece of research.

As the basis for most of the information in this report are articles from the BBC website, telegraph and guardian and not from official sources.

The only credible source is the burns report.

Anyway the overwhelming impression that this report gives is that hunts are carrying on as normal killing as many foxes as they did before the ban, which heralds the question, Why have a ban in the first place?

It's plainly obvious that it is not being enforced, which just backs up my view that the ban was brought in as a smite against a certain class, to show a little muscle, and in reality the government don't really care about the welfare of the fox as they and the police are quite happy to let the practice continue.

well as i pointed a few pages ago it is hard to find a truly unbiased piece of research on this subject as all the research is commissioned by groups with a certain agenda .The difference with this report is the NI assembly are to a certain extent removed from any bias so don't need to pick and choose which research to publish .
It is notable that you reject the research in this report despite being pro-hunting ,i find that curious ,i would like to know why you think fox hunting in it's pre ban form should be re introduced

---------- Post added at 09:24 ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Flyboy

The Burns report was produced before the ban. It is hardly a definitive study of how the hunting industry has fared since the act.



I think you have your contexts mixed up. The number of foxes being killed is not an indication of the method. In fact, more foxes are being killed by shooting, than by dogs. You are right though, that in the majority of cases the act is not being enforced. That is not the fault of the act itself, but by the lack of priority to which the various police forces around the UK place on its enforcement. That is caused by, in some part, a conflict of interest in some senior police officers. Around here, the local Chief Superintendent is a senior member of the hunt, there has been suggestions that the police ignore their behaviour because of his involvement. Nonetheless, any failures on the police's behalf is not any reason to ignore the law and does not make the Hunting Act wrong.

Good point, it must also be pointed out that a lot of the hunting takes place under the exceptions part of the law ,which does make it lawfull

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

well as i pointed a few pages ago it is hard to find a truly unbiased piece of research on this subject as all the research is commissioned by groups with a certain agenda .The difference with this report is the NI assembly are to a certain extent removed from any bias so don't need to pick and choose which research to publish .
It is notable that you reject the research in this report despite being pro-hunting ,i find that curious ,i would like to know why you think fox hunting in it's pre ban form should be re introduced

I'm neither "Pro" or "Anti" hunting.

But I am Anti the fox hunting ban as it was a poor, poor piece of legislation that targeted a very specific activity and demographic.

If an all encompassing hunting act was introduced that banned all forms of hunting and trapping, that would get my support.

It's like introducing a hand gun ban, but only banning pearl handled colt 45's.

You ban all hand guns or non at all, should be the same with hunting/ trapping.

[Flyboy]

You certainly are full of contradictions, aren't you. How can the current law have the sole purpose of annoying the upper classes if it achieves nothing it says it does. Surely, by introducing a blanket ban, as you suggest, it is more likely to have its basis in bias and discrimination, that you accuse the current law to be.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

You certainly are full of contradictions, aren't you.

Surely it's the law that is contradictory not me?

How can the current law have the sole purpose of annoying the upper classes if it achieves nothing it says it does.

That's the fault of the law makers, as I said it's a bad law.

Badly motivated
Badly Drawn Up
Badly Introduced
Badly Enforced.

The fact that it is more of a hindrence than a ban, says more about the government than anyone else.

The intention was there, the fact that the government was so inept as to properly implement it, is secondary.

Surely, by introducing a blanket ban, as you suggest, it is more likely to have its basis in bias and discrimination, that you accuse the current law to be.

How so?

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'm neither "Pro" or "Anti" hunting.

But I am Anti the fox hunting ban as it was a poor, poor piece of legislation that targeted a very specific activity and demographic.

I think you mis-understand the purpose of the ban ,it was introduced to remove the pleasure aspect of running a fox with a pack of hounds and letting them rip it apart for enjoyment ,the law also extends to other forms of hunting such deer,mink and hares .The old excuse was that fox hunting was just pest control so what about deer,mink and hares are they a pest ? no it was the enjoyment of the hunt ,now in most cases the hunt is still enjoyed without the brutal kill by dogs at the end
As for targeting a specific demographic that is just totaly wrong, people from all walks of life took part in hunting pre ban and still do

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

I think you mis-understand the purpose of the ban

On the contrary, I understand perfectly why is was introduced.

it was introduced to remove the pleasure aspect of running a fox with a pack of hounds and letting them rip it apart for enjoyment ,the law also extends to other forms of hunting such deer,mink and hares

Other forms of "hunting with dogs". They had to specify it somehow. They specifically wanted to ban "fox hunting" but realised that if they just specified "fox hunting" it would be blindingly obvious what they were doing. Therefore they expanded the idea to "hunting with dogs".

This however extended the ban to encompass other sports such a Hare Coarsing, which was not their original intention.

The old excuse was that fox hunting was just pest control so what about deer,mink and hares are they a pest ? no it was the enjoyment of the hunt

It's a blood sport, nothing more, as any form of hunting/trapping/fishing is.

now in most cases the hunt is still enjoyed without the brutal kill by dogs at the end

Not according to that report you posted earlier, that report highlights that as many foxes are killed by hunts now as before the ban.

As for targeting a specific demographic that is just totaly wrong, people from all walks of life took part in hunting pre ban and still do

The perception though, to the urban Labour voter that loves the cuddly fox, is that the evil rich countryside landowners that have 2 range rovers, 10 horses and a large manor house were/are the ones out the slaughtering basil brush.

And that's why Labour went after them.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Other forms of "hunting with dogs". They had to specify it somehow. They specifically wanted to ban "fox hunting" but realised that if they just specified "fox hunting" it would be blindingly obvious what they were doing. Therefore they expanded the idea to "hunting with dogs".

This however extended the ban to encompass other sports such a Hare Coarsing, which was not their original intention.

No it wasn't a way of hiding the true intent ,it was a way of trying to make a law that was correct and fair ,this has been tried many times over the years and with many different governments and has proved to be problematic

It's a blood sport, nothing more, as any form of hunting/trapping/fishing is.

Not true at all
Many fishermen cacth fish to eat ,i myself have trapped/shot rabbits/pheasants to eat .That in no way can be classed as "blood sport"

Not according to that report you posted earlier, that report highlights that as many foxes are killed by hunts now as before the ban.

All that proves is that the sport of foxhunting was needless ,most (not all ) foxes are shot ,they can be flushed out using no more than 2 dogs ,there are also loop holes and exceptions to the law which the huntsmen exploit ,that will happen with any law

The perception though, to the urban Labour voter that loves the cuddly fox, is that the evil rich countryside landowners that have 2 range rovers, 10 horses and a large manor house were/are the ones out the slaughtering basil brush.

And that's why Labour went after them.

Whatever the intentions of the legislation and the motives behind them(which are debatable) does not negate the facts that in some aspects the law has proved benficial,in other aspects it may be found wanting i accept that ,it does not mean it should be repealed ,enforced a bit more and tweaked a bit but not repealed

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

Not true at all
Many fishermen cacth fish to eat ,i myself have trapped/shot rabbits/pheasants to eat .That in no way can be classed as "blood sport"

And by the same token many fishermen don't.

I knew as soon as I played the "fishing card" that this would be the response.

Fish go through the trauma of being caught, de hooked, and then thrown into a "keep net" usually, if the angler's any good, with many other fish with very little room.

The trauma of all this kills many fish. Sport course fishing for the likes of roach, rudd, perch etc is a blood sport - these fish are not kept for eating an many die in the process.

Before the ban many people used to hunt hares & rabbits with dogs for eating - they are no longer allowed to do this.

You say you have trapped rabbits what kind of trap did you use? out of intrest.

All that proves is that the sport of foxhunting was needless

Sport fishing is needless
Hunting with hawks is needless

All hunting, fishing and trapping is "needless" in this day and age.

Whatever the intentions of the legislation and the motives behind them(which are debatable) does not negate the facts that in some aspects the law has proved benficial,in other aspects it may be found wanting i accept that ,it does not mean it should be repealed ,enforced a bit more and tweaked a bit but not repealed

It should be repealed or all encompassing.

I just want rid of the ambiguity and hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Pierre

And by the same token many fishermen don't.

I knew as soon as I played the "fishing card" that this would be the response.

Fish go through the trauma of being caught, de hooked, and then thrown into a "keep net" usually, if the angler's any good, with many other fish with very little room.

The trauma of all this kills many fish. Sport course fishing for the likes of roach, rudd, perch etc is a blood sport - these fish are not kept for eating an many die in the process.

Before the ban many people used to hunt hares & rabbits with dogs for eating - they are no longer allowed to do this.

to a certain extent i would agree ,i don't fish and never have apart from the odd time my grandad took me .There is also the ongoing debate of what fish actually feel pain wise which is one reason why the ban only dealt with mammals

You say you have trapped rabbits what kind of trap did you use? out of intrest.

a simple cage

Sport fishing is needless
Hunting with hawks is needless

All hunting, fishing and trapping is "needless" in this day and age.

Quite agree if you insert the word some .I disagree with blood sport for entertainment that is the distinction that the hunting act tries to have .It recognizes that some hunting is required for the welfare of the species and pest control .How of a pest a fox is is again debatable

[TheDaddy]

Another person bitten

TERRIFIED ambulance driver Tammy Page had the end of her finger bitten off by a ferocious FOX that crept into her house - through her CAT FLAP.

She told of her horror however when the fox CHASED her and squared up to her snarling and emitting a high pitched scream.


Tammy of Worthing, West Sussex, said: "It was the most blood curdling sound and the fox looked mangy and crazy and it was between me and the way out.


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ns-finger.html

[Flyboy]

And why is this a reason to bring back fox hunting?

Perhaps we should change the thread header to "Ban sensationalist reporting, especially the over-use of capitalised words......"

(although quite why her cat flap was in upper case escapes me....)

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

And why is this a reason to bring back fox hunting?

It isn't but if you'd had the decency to bother reading the first post in the thread you'd know it wasn't me that said bring it back but a senior Tory and that my main interest in this subject is the urban fox menace.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

It isn't but if you'd had the decency to bother reading the first post in the thread you'd know it wasn't me that said bring it back but a senior Tory and that my main interest in this subject is the urban fox menace.

I think a bigger problem is the urban dog menace, You have more people attacked by urban dogs than foxes. so my question would be should we start hunting them with packs of dogs ????.