Originally posted by Kriz_4
The hunt of this type is not population control, it doesn't happen very regulary. Fox population is stable due to the fact there is so little
habitat for them, there is no where for this population to expand to.
I suggest the mirrors guy also spends time here in the UK. It is a compact densly populated country. There are almost no places for "a brit to hunt
if he wants too". Its mainly private land.
Quite so -
Plus the fox population can still be 'controlled' by other arguably humane methods, such as a very well placed shot. The ban relates to the hunting
of foxes with hounds.
(Of course it will mean that you don't have to worry about your own cats, ducks and chickens when the hunt goes past).
The hounds are bred to run as a pack, so 'finding homes' may not be really too much of an option, (plus it would take a bit of work) I dare say most
of them will end up being destroyed. This is pretty much the end they face anyway either following injuries from the hunt or simply no longer useful
... 11 Hounds were killed by a train in one incident.
Oh, and what about the number of horses that die each year too.
So, what happens - you drive a creature to death, either ripped apart by dogs, or even if it escapes the pack - the effort may cost it it's life as
it's been so critically damaged internally by the sheer effort of finding an escape.
And the other costs - well so what really, if in so doing you kill a few of your own hounds, maybe you'll cause a traffic accident as they spill out
onto a road, maybe you'll break a horses leg too, even your own horse - and for what really?
Is it to perform a useful service perhaps, another dangerous rural killer safely dispatched ... so your battery hens can sleep safely at night
(assuming they can actually relax enough to even begin to sleep, not of course that they would even know what a fox was), or maybe so your fattening
lambs no longer need to show any interest in that small skinny looking fox slink up the hedge looking for voles, mice and berries as their own short
life slips past.
Or a quaint country tradition maybe ?
Or just preserve a way of life that's already so long past being relevant that it even
looks dead.
It's facile to claim it's useful (some studies suggest as little as 0.5% of the fox population is killed like this, so it's not really about vermin
control is it: references to follow) - it's been banned, and not before time.
As this is such and emotive issue, please note how I actually opened the post before flaming.
Interesting to read that it was pro-hunt supporters that 'stormed' parliment, not anti-hunt protesters, with whom one would normally associate with
such behaviour.
news.bbc.co.uk...
The "loss of livelihood" argument doesn't
really hold up to scrutiny either - I don't recall the Countryside Alliance adding their voices
over the recent requirement for 100k+ staff cuts in the civil service, nor over previous mine closures, the loss of the steel industry, shipbuilding
...
Does the use of the Parliament Act does really undermine democracy here - or does [it in this case[ reinforce the will of the lower
elected
house, over the mostly unelected / hereditary upper house ?
Just one other thing -
Originally posted by HeyThatsMyBike
I've just got back from Parliament Square in central London where the large pro-hunting demonstration is being held.
What a fantastic group really standing up for what they believe. They'll be damned if they're going to let some sof pinko lefties take away their
liberty. This is such a non-issue it is unbelievable. The only people that hunting affects are the bleeding heart ultra stout animal rights people,
and who the hell really cares about them?
You say "the only people hunting affects are the bleeding heart ultra stout animal rights people" - that being the case - why were the Countryside
Alliance there then if hunting only affects "the bleeding heart [...] etc ...", and thus by implication, no one else?
Sorry about the long post ...
[edit on 15-9-2004 by 0951]
