Fox Hunting Ban

[micky-quayle]

bribones,
fox hunting with dogs is very selective, true the pack will chase any fox it picks the scent up from but generally the young fitter foxes escape the hounds but the older weaker sickly ones have a much greater chance of being caught (the very ones that tend to cause farmers problems)
as i stated previously it is the best way to control problem foxes, if it is banned we will see methods such as poisoning widely used which will dramatically reduce fox numbers whether they are a problem or not, not to mention the other species that would also take the bait.
lets face it we wouldn\'t like it if sudenly the use of live peeler crab was banned on the grounds of cruelty, after all we dismember them while they are still alive, the antis would turn around and say the use of live crab was uneccassary to catch fish and other methods could be used, to a degree this would be true but you and i both know other methods would not normally be as effective.

 

[Hiram.A.Biff]

Im in a bit of a quandry on this one, I have both fors and againsts for fox hunting. Ive done quite a bit of hunting with dogs in my time, tho not foxhunting. I used to lamp rabbits and hares, and was once offered £30 per fox pelt from a farmer.I wont say where. to get to my point, I have seen anti anglers threaten violence a toward a young lad at Leazes lake, they threw his rod and box into the lake, spineless bastards, but at least they were arrested soon after.
I think we will be targeted one day, as for now, Labour isnt trying to save foxes, just their own fat ar5e5

 

[TC]

\" the older weaker sickly ones have a much greater chance of being caught (the very ones that tend to cause farmers problems)\"

So it\'s OK for the hounds to tear those ones to bits, then ???

Can\'t really see the difference between that and the recent incident in Shields where a puppy was thrown around and kicked about on a football pitch for the \"sport\" and enjoyment of 3 teenage yobs, meself. The puppy being 6 weeks old and needing to be put down by a vet due to severe brain damage it sustained.

[Edited on 15/9/2004 by TC]

 

[BriH]

if they wanna call it pest control fine hunt em and shoot em,im not fussed either way- quote

seems you have two views on this now bribones-to say \"Get rid\" when likely, your much like myself (and possibly 80-90% on here) WE dont know the rules and to be HONEST with OURSELVES dont really give a Sh*t about a FOX- i posted this topic this morning while getting my Two daughters ready for School- and my Six year old picked up on it while watching the telly - \"does this mean you wont be able to fish,Dad\"only because someone mentioned US LOT(fishermen) in their WAR to keep what they do for a Hobby seem more acceptable- hence the post in the first place- Bribones you EITHER hunt or dont , and be rest assured that now the Antis have got their way ,(after MANY Years campaigning) they are now turning the Spotlight on us- and as for people saying that fishing will not be banned - Who Knows with this Government/future leaders.

 

[mark]

Can\'t really see the difference between that and the recent incident in Shields where a puppy was thrown around and kicked about on a football pitch for the \"sport\" and enjoyment of 3 teenage yobs, meself. The puppy being 6 weeks old and needing to be put down by a vet due to severe brain damage it sustained.

[Edited on 15/9/2004 by TC]

No difference at all mate.

hunting with dogs supposedly being more efficient. complete load of shite. If it were all about controlling numbers, then why is a fox hunt such a big social occasion??? Why do they have to dress up like twats?? Why do you have to pay money to take part in a great many hunts??

If it has to be with dogs, then a couple of lurchers trained to sniff out a fox, with just one handler would do the same job. Read the history of the sport. Why were fox hounds bread?? as a hunting dog they are useless. they were introduced in the 18th century for the then prince of wales (George III) because he was a such a fat drunk german git that he coulddn\'y keep up with the usual mix of deer hounds, and the fox hound being slower in pursuit, is less likely to catch its prey as quick so they enjoyment of the hunter is prolonged and fatty george can get a few more jugs of port down his neck

Pheasant were introduced to this country around the same time as they were the only game bird stupid enough to stand still long enough so the prince regent had a chance of shooting em!

 

[BriH]

TC-there is Two differances ,the first is the yobs ,who i would put in some kind of jail where they get a daily booting in the head and the other is WHERE were the OWNERS of such a small defenceless puppy

BOTH to do with HUMANS not how fit a fox is - The law of nature applies -if your fit you dont need to mope about farmers hen coops-if your a bit old (near the lighthouse LOL lets say) keep an eye oot for posh Wank*rs in red Tunics cos there after you one day soon.

 

[micky-quayle]

\" the older weaker sickly ones have a much greater chance of being caught (the very ones that tend to cause farmers problems)\"

So it\'s OK for the hounds to tear those ones to bits, then ???

Can\'t really see the difference between that and the recent incident in Shields where a puppy was thrown around and kicked about on a football pitch for the \"sport\" and enjoyment of 3 teenage yobs, meself. The puppy being 6 weeks old and needing to be put down by a vet due to severe brain damage it sustained.

[Edited on 15/9/2004 by TC]

a big difference tony, is the little puppy was no threat to anyones livlyhood it was just gatuitous violence to a totally inocent creature.
the older weak and sickly fox that is starting to prey upon domestic farm animals is a different kettle of fish. have you ever winessed the aftermath of a fox amongst chickens the fox kills, eats its fill then continues to kill every chicken there although not hungry any more. this is a fact not just hearsay or rumour.
i\'m afraid the analogy is a poor one tony !

 

[TC]

Most of the posts so far have been to voice views AGAINST hunting with dogs. I may be wrong (and I\'m sure Brian will tell me if I am), but I think the original question being posed was more about the future of fishing and how the vote on the banning of hunting with dogs may affect angling in the future ???

Regarding the \"poor analogy\".........I think your (and the other PROs)r argument FOR is pretty poor. also, Micky.

However, we\'ll agree to disagree on that.



[Edited on 15/9/2004 by TC]

 

[micky-quayle]

Can\'t really see the difference between that and the recent incident in Shields where a puppy was thrown around and kicked about on a football pitch for the \"sport\" and enjoyment of 3 teenage yobs, meself. The puppy being 6 weeks old and needing to be put down by a vet due to severe brain damage it sustained.

[Edited on 15/9/2004 by TC]

No difference at all mate.

hunting with dogs supposedly being more efficient. complete load of shite. If it were all about controlling numbers, then why is a fox hunt such a big social occasion??? Why do they have to dress up like twats?? Why do you have to pay money to take part in a great many hunts??

If it has to be with dogs, then a couple of lurchers trained to sniff out a fox, with just one handler would do the same job. Read the history of the sport. Why were fox hounds bread?? as a hunting dog they are useless. they were introduced in the 18th century for the then prince of wales (George III) because he was a such a fat drunk german git that he coulddn\'y keep up with the usual mix of deer hounds, and the fox hound being slower in pursuit, is less likely to catch its prey as quick so they enjoyment of the hunter is prolonged and fatty george can get a few more jugs of port down his neck

Pheasant were introduced to this country around the same time as they were the only game bird stupid enough to stand still long enough so the prince regent had a chance of shooting em!

a lot depends upon your definition of efficient, hunting with dogs will never its true reduce significantly the overall population of foxes in this country (i know some huntsmen claim this but its bollix, a bit like the \"one that got away\" man in fishing) but it is efficient at controlling specific problem foxes in specific areas. farmers on a whole are not bothered about the number of foxes as long as they don\'t affect his livelyhood.
the only way forward is to have a regulatory body set up that will weed out bad hunts and either bring them to heel or close them down. hunting is like most sports you do get a few bad apples.

 

[BriH]

Yep your not wrong TC- that was the main reason of the First post ,but i still find it Weird that some of us can put OUR Sport in a differant \"pigeon hole\" to that of Hunting with dogs, WE either Hunt OR Dont ,as we all know that we are being looked at ,even my mates who are not into either are asking when i am selling my gear p*ss taking tw*ts

 

[micky-quayle]

Most of the posts so far have been to voice views AGAINST hunting with dogs. I may be wrong (and I\'m sure Brian will tell me if I am), but I think the original question being posed was more about the future of fishing and how the vote on the banning of hunting with dogs may affect angling in the future ???

Regarding the \"poor analogy\".........I think your (and the other PROs)r argument FOR is pretty poor. also, Micky.

However, we\'ll agree to disagree on that.



[Edited on 15/9/2004 by TC]

right, well getting back to the question of fishing and the antis, it is worrying to me that in many areas of the country now livebaiting has been banned for piking after pressure from groups such as pices and peta have been taken notice of. its the thin edge of the wedge, if its made illegal to stick hooks in a fish and cast it out how long before it is made illegal to hook a fish and wind it in.
it really is a worry, a lot of my spare time is spent piking on remote scottish lochs on my own in a bivvy miles from anywhere, what chance would i have if a dozen of these antis came down, remember a lot of these loons put the life of a fish above the life of a human !

ps. best debate on the board for a long time this !

[Edited on 15/9/2004 by micky-quayle]

 

[Ell]

Mickey, are you really trying to tell me that the best way to control the fox is to drink sherry and be rich, or hang around the horses arses looking for you families chin, before taking off with a big gang of barely controllable dogs on a smaller gang of expensive and subjugated horses to then crash through hedgerows (ahem.. natural habitat) roll full steam through private property (Trespass you country fuckers, you know that thing we do when we step foot on a square inch of your inherited property) blocking roads and scaring kids.
I suggest with respect you talk shite.

I know you try most baits with the pike, why not Dynamite or Arsenic. Pest control innit.

[Edited on 15/9/2004 by Ell]

 

[mark]

a lot depends upon your definition of efficient, hunting with dogs will never its true reduce significantly the overall population of foxes in this country (i know some huntsmen claim this but its bollix, a bit like the \"one that got away\" man in fishing) but it is efficient at controlling specific problem foxes in specific areas. farmers on a whole are not bothered about the number of foxes as long as they don\'t affect his livelyhood.
the only way forward is to have a regulatory body set up that will weed out bad hunts and either bring them to heel or close them down. hunting is like most sports you do get a few bad apples.

there may be somne efficiency to it, but efficient is a fairly broad spectrum.

One thing for sure it will never be as a efficeitn as .22 round from 500yds

I grew up in and live in \'hunting\' country

have you seen how much damage 80 hounds and 30 horses can do?? If you own the land and some one else has \'hunting rights\' tough titty. so you just spent 10 grand on land drainage and have just planted... the hunting with hounds brigade don\'t give a hoot. All the farmers I know would much rather despatch an itinerant fox with a rifle. Foxes taking lambs is another myth. It is very very rare. foxes will take smaller animals rabiits etc - a pest that does need controlling, or take carrion. the only excepetion being foxes are partial to chickens. sit outside the coop with a twelve bore and the foxe wont last long.

the difference between fox hunting and fishing, yes we are all hunting, is the social divide. fishing seems to have little in the way of class distinction (salmon fishing possibly excepted) whereas I believe the hunting with hounds brigade by the way the present themselves and their attitude to anyone that gets in their way set themselves up for a fall a long time ago

 

[Ell]

last one i seen had the personality of a cooked dinner

LOL BUT comments like that don\'t help mate. Fish are Living things they do have living stuff going on in them, I guess they do feel pain. This is irrelevant to the debate. If it came down to pain then Maccky D et all would be off the list. we\'ve all caught carrier bags in our time (little or no central nervous system) but you wouldn\'t deliberatley target them, mind with a bit of piri piri sauce tastes just like squid.

 

[Ell]

Apologies to Mickey due, it\'s your opinion on this particular issue I\'m vexed with mate.

 

[micky-quayle]

Mickey, are you really trying to tell me that the best way to control the fox is to drink sherry and be rich, or hang around the horses arses looking for you families chin, before taking off with a big gang of barely controllable dogs on a smaller gang of expensive and subjugated horses to then crash through hedgerows (ahem.. natural habitat) roll full steam through private property (Trespass you country fuckers, you know that thing we do when we step foot on a square inch of your inherited property) blocking roads and scaring kids.
I suggest with respect you talk shite.

I know you try most baits with the pike, why not Dynamite or Arsenic. Pest control innit.

[Edited on 15/9/2004 by Ell]

its true that most hunts are run by the wealthy but it is not only them who take part in hunts many \"ordinary\"(if thats the right word to use) country folk take part too.
it must not also be forgotten the much needed boost the hunts money makes to the rural economy, we are messing with peoples livlihoods here, the knock on effect goes right through the rural economy.
seems to me you have an axe to grind with the rich, i treat everyone the same be they homeless or the queen. this class divide issue is irrelevent.
and as for the bit about dynamite or arsenic, whats that all about !!!!!!!!
and the bit about talking sh**e thats rich after reading a few of your posts over the years. pot kettle black are three words that come to mind, with respect ell.

 

[micky-quayle]

appologies due to ell, i think we\'re all getting a little heated, good craic tho.

 

[TC]

Yep, \"good craic\"........let\'s not spoil the debate by getting personal, though :exclam:

 

[TC]

I think that on the issue, you can have either of 3 views;
1. Pro hunting with dogs
2. Anti hunting with dogs
3. Couldn\'t care, either way

I very much doubt that ANY amount of agruing for / against will make anybody change their original view.
So if we\'re gonna continue this, let\'s just state our views and keep it civil, please.

 

[micky-quayle]

anyway back to fishing since we seem to be getting side tracked.
a question for everyone.
do you think at any point in the future the antis could ever get enough support to threaten an angling ban.
my take on it for what its worth is i can not see a time when fishing will be banned but i can see a time when a lot of restictions will be placed upon us and a gradual errosion of our rights will happen, they may not be able to stop us fishing but could become a major pain in the butt. concede no ground to them make them fight for every inch !