Fox hunting

[Phobas]

For those not in the UK the commons voted for a law against fox hunting with hounds.
The problem is that a report made when considering this question found that this form of hunting was no more cruel than shooting, gassing or snaring foxes and in some areas is probably the best method.
Now the thing is as much as i'm against the idea that you can get enjoyment out of hunting foxes, I think it would not be right for a liberal society to ban something just because the majority of people find it distasteful.
It is odd that in a society that says it is becoming a more liberal society that this move is being made.

What do you think?

[RandBlade]

It is a very illiberal move, and I am 100% of the belief that morals should play no role in the law. I believe that those who want it banned because its just done by 'toffs' are completely in the wrong and that view is despicable.

I back the ban though. What the reports actually showed was that in some rare occassions it can be no worse, but in the vast majority of times it is far, far worse. Furthermore there were many cases where these foxes were being bred to support the sport, thus shooting in the foot the notion that

In case you don't know what fox-hunting with hounds is like, its a 'sport' where a group of riders with dogs chase a fox around the countryside. Typically a fox can be chased by these very vicious dogs for over an hour, before then being torn apart limb from limb. We have laws against the cruelty of animals and its quite right too. If you treated a dog like these foxes get treated you would be prosecuted. Killing foxes in this extra-painful manner should not be allowed. Farmers should and still rightly will be allowed to kill foxes with many (more mainstream anyway) methods, such as shooting them.

I don't advocate a ban based on moral, I advocate it based on the removal of suffering. I ask anyone who might not oppose a ban, how would you feel if dogs where chased for hours before being torn apart limb from limb? Would that be acceptable to you too?

[Phobas]

Originally posted by RandBlade
.

I back the ban though. What the reports actually showed was that in some rare occassions it can be no worse, but in the vast majority of times it is far, far worse. Furthermore there were many cases where these foxes were being bred to support the sport, thus shooting in the foot the notion that
I didn't read the report so what I said was based on memory, the bit about the foxes being bred, would probably be taken onto accout by the regulation opition that before yesterday was an option.
The bit about guns gas and snare was i think was that this could lead to painful lingering deaths. While being riped limb from limb is I think pretty instantanious.
Originally posted by RandBlade
.
I don't advocate a ban based on moral, I advocate it based on the removal of suffering. I ask anyone who might not oppose a ban, how would you feel if dogs where chased for hours before being torn apart limb from limb? Would that be acceptable to you too?
Is being torn apart limb from limb that bad, oh it looks very bad but as I pointed out this probably more instantanous that a shot on snare trap. Dispite being very graphic would it involve less suffering.
The bit about being chased is a fair one and probably the best place to attack hunting from. That being said being chased by predators is a very natural way of dealing with a population, and unless the hunters disobey rules the fox can escape, thus promoting survival of the fittest. so could fox hunting be good for the fox species (perhaps i'm being silly here).

[RandBlade]

I did read up on a few (independent not RSPCA) reports and most concluded that the foxes suffered normally much more under hunting with hounds. Some said that they were about the same. Never heard of a single independent report claiming the opposite, that hunting with hounds was better.

Being shot is normally instantaneous, occassionally it requires a second shot, and very rarely does the fox escape having been shot (which I imagine would be quite painful).

The problem is not just the being torn apart, but also the chase itself.
The bit about being chased is a fair one and probably the best place to attack hunting from. That being said being chased by predators is a very natural way of dealing with a population, and unless the hunters disobey rules the fox can escape, thus promoting survival of the fittest. so could fox hunting be good for the fox species (perhaps i'm being silly here).Its the chase I have most of a complaint against. Not the sport, as I said I despise the logic that its a "just a 'toff' sport". But if you're supporting hunting as a form of pest control then having better foxes evolving wouldn't necessarily support your argument now, would it?

As an interest aside, I live next opposite to a farm. In fact I'm looking at it now (PC next to window, window looks at farm). Its a sheep farm although they're not out at the moment at our end. There are foxes around here too, but no hunt. What shocked me when we moved here was seeing foxes around near sheep. In fact I've seen a fox in the same paddock as the sheep before, the sheep weren't even looking concerned. You see foxes rarely hunt sheep, they feed off carrion normally.

[Phobas]

Originally posted by RandBlade
I did read up on a few (independent not RSPCA) reports and most concluded that the foxes suffered normally much more under hunting with hounds. Some said that they were about the same. Never heard of a single independent report claiming the opposite, that hunting with hounds was better.

Being shot is normally instantaneous, occassionally it requires a second shot, and very rarely does the fox escape having been shot (which I imagine would be quite painful).
Well I have not read any of these points, I think the point about shots normally being instantaneous might not be correct, for one it would require a reasonable shot to kill instantly. Body shots may not intantly kill. a person from human gun shot wounds I think hits to the chest are not always instant. Then there is the case of cliping a fox a shot to the limbs is not fatal they can probably run to ground but then you have the problem of the wound that may bleed the creature to death or get infected.
I think this was the general gist of the report I heard of.
Originally posted by RandBlade

The problem is not just the being torn apart, but also the chase itself.
Its the chase I have most of a complaint against. Not the sport, as I said I despise the logic that its a "just a 'toff' sport". But if you're supporting hunting as a form of pest control then having better foxes evolving wouldn't necessarily support your argument now, would it?
You are right the chase is a problem, in my opinion more than the being torn limb from limb. I could go on about how natural it is that the creatuer does have some means of escape. The point about imporving the species was a bit flipent and was not really an argument for hunting. But the thing is thats nature for you when the predators come your run or hide.

Originally posted by RandBlade

As an interest aside, I live next opposite to a farm. In fact I'm looking at it now (PC next to window, window looks at farm). Its a sheep farm although they're not out at the moment at our end. There are foxes around here too, but no hunt. What shocked me when we moved here was seeing foxes around near sheep. In fact I've seen a fox in the same paddock as the sheep before, the sheep weren't even looking concerned. You see foxes rarely hunt sheep, they feed off carrion normally.
I don't know the interaction between sheep, I take it the lambs are not at risk. Poultry on the other hand is at risk from Foxs and I know for a fact that they do kill birds. Of cause this doesn't matter if they are locked away, but the free range stuff is at risk.

As I said in my first post i don't aprove of fox hunting, but I'd rather have this thing die out rather than be baned.

[Wormboy]

Hmm, I don't know much about the issue, but RB's logic seems sound to me. I think it does fall under the cruelty to animals area of the law, which IMO isn't extreme at all (sounds like the UK's laws are similar to the average ones in the US).

Mind you, I'm not opposed to hunting in general, though I wouldn't do it myself. I certainly grew up fishing a lot (a country boy :D). But I think there's a big difference between terrifying an animal for an hour before killing it, as opposed to a clean shot, or maybe a non-clean one quickly followed by a kill. The chase sounds inhumane.

Also, I'm not some sort of PETA animal rights nut. But I do think that animals should never be subject to extremes of treatment. If they need to be killed. Do it as quickly and as painlessly as possible.

[ned-uk]

Talking from personal experience, you can take it from me, hunting with hounds is inhumane. I live in prime fox hunting country and have witnessed many hunts. My house backs onto a wood and one time an utterly exhausted fox came bounding out of the wood, right in front of me, and ran across my back garden. It was being pursued by three hounds. It leaped over a low fence and across the field to the side of the house. It was here that the hounds caught up with it, along with the rest of the pack. As you can imagine, it was brutally killed by the pack. The horses and riders were nowhere to be seen.

Many in favour of hunting with dogs claim that if the fox goes to ground it has effectively escaped and will be safe. This is total bulls**t. wherever there's a hunt you'll find terriers. These small dogs, along with spades are used to flush and dig the foxes out. They have nowhere to hide unless the hounds loose the scent.

On the other hand a good gamekeeper with a powerful lamp and a shot gun can kill many foxes in the space in a night. This is by far the best way to control fox numbers. I have witnessed four foxes being killed in a night this way, all killed with the first shot. i was the one holding the lamp.

I'm not opposed the controlling fox numbers, just not with dogs.

[Noah Crane]

Originally posted by RandBlade
I am 100% of the belief that morals should play no role in the law.

Extremely disturbing.

I hope that fox hunting is banned entirely.

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by Noah Crane
Extremely disturbing.You name one law that you think I should support which is based solely on morals and not harm to others. The only one I can think of where I go against that belief is banning Incest.
I hope that fox hunting is banned entirely.Hunting with hounds should be banned entirely. Farmers do still need to shoot to protect poultry and that should be allowed, foxes are still a vermin. But they shouldn't be chased miles across the countryside over hours.

Hunters and the Countryside Alliance say its the hunt, the chase, not the kill they enjoy. Well its that chase which is the problem. Even if it takes two shots to kill, the whole time lasts a very short period of time, not over an hour.

[Phobas]

Originally posted by RandBlade
You name one law that you think I should support which is based solely on morals and not harm to others. The only one I can think of where I go against that belief is banning Incest.

Fraid you can't use that one asit can lead to genetic abnormalities and mental anguish as we have to hear about men being their sister's father:bulb:

I could actual argue that the animal cruelty laws are based on the belief that animals cruelty is wrong and unacteptable, and that this means they get included into the "and not harm others" bit.

Noah
I do actually agree with RB on this point as it may be the case that the "moral" majority consider something i'm doing as unlawful (i doubt it but it could happen) and here I would like the fact that "morals" should play no role in the law. You can't pick and choice the rules based on whether or not you lose out on them.
This is why I was a bit concerned that this peace of legislature was produced in the way it was. i.e largly to apease labour back bencher and Have a popular policy released, this is the way bad legislature gets published, I think the dangerous dogs act was another one.
Its not so much that I dissagree with the position that foxhunting is bad rather I dissagree with they way this whole ban foxhunting law has been aproached.

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by Phobas
Fraid you can't use that one asit can lead to genetic abnormalities and mental anguish as we have to hear about men being their sister's father:bulb: That would only be if a child was born through the sex. Consenting, non-child-bearing, adult incestuous sex is victimless.
I could actual argue that the animal cruelty laws are based on the belief that animals cruelty is wrong and unacteptable, and that this means they get included into the "and not harm others" bit. Agreed, that's why its not a moral law, its one based on the prevention of harm.

Noah morals are for individuals, laws are for everyone. I believe the law should aim to prevent harm to others and that is all. It is a very simple and blatant fact that morality is personal not universal, so morality should not form law. Individuals should then be free to live their lives as they choose within their own personal moral code (or outside it if they choose) within the law.

Phobas I do agree some of the motivation behind this law is wrong. But there is legitimate motivation that calls for it to be banned. Just because some people have wrong reasons never changes the fact IMO that they can be believing in the right thing for the wrong reasons and a ban is the right thing to do, even if it is for some done for the wrong reasons.

Furthermore as to the law lets not forget that this is hardly a new issue, it was attempted before the last election and it was in Labours manifesto. The Lords can't block it this time, third strike and this should be forced through with the Parliament Act.

[Noah Crane]

Originally posted by RandBlade
I believe the law should aim to prevent harm to others and that is all.


Why? Because of certain 'inalienable rights'? That's already bringing morality into the issue.

The notion that 'personal liberties' are sacrosanct as you would seem to think already entails making a moral judgement.

Quite frankly the notion that 'morality' should not be considered when discussing law is impossible; all wilful human actions and decisions which in some way affect the way people conduct themselves and govern their lives fall within the moral sphere whether you like it or not, an attitude whereby one would claim to be neutral regarding morality in something which pervades human existence as thoroughly as 'the law' does, is simply not being sincere.

[RandBlade]

I have not mentioned any 'inalienable rights'. Just that the State has no f*cking business telling me what morals I should have. Its up to me.

The challenge has already been laid down to you: If morality and not the effects on others should decide the law then, you name some law decided by morality and has no effects on third parties that which you think I should agree with.

There are many things that I consider to be immoral, but unless they harm myself or other third parties I won't even consider forcing my views on others as its nothing to do with me. Its not my life its theirs. Similarily its my life.

Forget 'inalienable rights' etc, my views if you want to summarise it into a catch-phrase other than "Do what you like, so long as it doesn't harm others" then a good phrase would be "Mind your own f*cking business" and I'll mind mine.

[Noah Crane]

Originally posted by RandBlade
[B]I have not mentioned any 'inalienable rights'. Just that the State has no f*cking business telling me what morals I should have. Its up to me.

Another value judgement, congratulations, and on what do you base this?

The challenge has already been laid down to you: If morality and not the effects on others should decide the law then, you name some law decided by morality and has no effects on third parties that which you think I should agree with.

The 'effects on others' consideration in a law makes it a moral issue. I don't understand the rest of your sentence, it doesn't appear to be proper English.

There are many things that I consider to be immoral, but unless they harm myself or other third parties I won't even consider forcing my views on others as its nothing to do with me. Its not my life its theirs. Similarily its my life.

Forget 'inalienable rights' etc, my views if you want to summarise it into a catch-phrase other than "Do what you like, so long as it doesn't harm others" then a good phrase would be "Mind your own f*cking business" and I'll mind mine.

Again, you've missed the point entirely, the notion that your personal liberties should not be interfered with by the state is a normative judgement. You're simply taking your liberal bias and assuming it's some sort of objective and neutral standpoint.

As for the swearing, do you think it makes your point more forceful, or are you trying to look hard? :rolleyes:

[St. Mark]

This is just more chipping away at canine rights. :o

[Ganon]

WHAT!? NO MORE HOUND FOX HUNTING IN ENGLAND!? THEN WHY NOT JUST TAKE AWAY FOOTBALL IN AMERICA, BEER, POLKA AND CHOCOLATE IN GERMANY!? DEAR LORD, WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO!?

[Noah Crane]

Originally posted by Loki
Tell me Noah, what would happen if your country (you wish it was anyway ;) ) was taken over my Islamic extremists and they forced everyone to obey Sharia Law. Would you obey Islamic morals? Or what if Hindu morals were forced upon you? Or Satanist morals?

I'm not arguing that the state should apply specifically Christian morals but should ensure that laws conform to natural law (i.e. that which is common to at the very least the vast majority of cultures (e.g. not murdering, not stealing, so on and so forth). And in any case, in this thread the only thing I'm trying to do is get Randblade to realise that the liberal bias he demonstrates is in itself already a normative issue, and that liberalism is not a neutral and objective standpoint.

[RandBlade]

I apologise for the swearing if it upset you, it was meant to add emphasis.

Murder, stealing etc all affect others. Try again. Name a single issue that should be incased in law which only violates morals. An issue that doesn't harm others.

I never said my belief in how the system should be isn't normative. By definition anything which says how a system should be is normative and one that states how something is, is positive, so what's your point?

Glad to see someone using the word liberal properly at last :)

[Steely Glint]

What do you think?

It's rubbish.

[RandBlade]

Why bump a 4 year old thread Steely?

[Steely Glint]

Fashion?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Fashion! Turn to the left
Fashion! Turn to the right
Oooh, fashion!
We are the goon squad and we're coming to town
Beep-beep

edit: excellent crosspost :)

[Nessus]

Why bump a 4 year old thread Steely?
Ban :mad:

[RandBlade]

:mad: naB

[Nessus]

Aww, come on. Just a little ban? No one needs to know. It'll be our secret.

[RandBlade]

Just between you and me?

[Nessus]

As long as he gets ban'd I'm content.

[Steely Glint]

Should I tell them what you were planning over new years, nessus? :sour:

[Nessus]

There's no UN resolution against jew-bombing! :mad:

[Steely Glint]

No, but there are UN resolutions about bombing by jews. That counts, right?

[']['ear]

It is a very illiberal move, and I am 100% of the belief that morals should play no role in the law. I believe that those who want it banned because its just done by 'toffs' are completely in the wrong and that view is despicable.

I back the ban though. What the reports actually showed was that in some rare occassions it can be no worse, but in the vast majority of times it is far, far worse. Furthermore there were many cases where these foxes were being bred to support the sport, thus shooting in the foot the notion that

In case you don't know what fox-hunting with hounds is like, its a 'sport' where a group of riders with dogs chase a fox around the countryside. Typically a fox can be chased by these very vicious dogs for over an hour, before then being torn apart limb from limb. We have laws against the cruelty of animals and its quite right too. If you treated a dog like these foxes get treated you would be prosecuted. Killing foxes in this extra-painful manner should not be allowed. Farmers should and still rightly will be allowed to kill foxes with many (more mainstream anyway) methods, such as shooting them.

I don't advocate a ban based on moral, I advocate it based on the removal of suffering. I ask anyone who might not oppose a ban, how would you feel if dogs where chased for hours before being torn apart limb from limb? Would that be acceptable to you too?

My reasoning exactly. If you have laws prohibiting animal cruelty, then you are required to enforce them against fox hunters.

And no, it's nothing like normal hunting. If people want to hunt a fox with a gun without the hours of chasing and tearing apart with dogs, I'm all for it.



Edit: Curse you, Steely! I never check the post dates. I responded to RB's original post, then noticed a post by freakin Wormboy! :sour:

[RandBlade]

I suppose when it starts off with Phobas and I it could originally look like a current thread :haha:.

Shame we don't have Wormboy or Noah anymore. Even though I never agreed with Noah, I don't think I recall a single major issue we ever agreed on (except that Gibraltar should stay British for as long as they want to - me being British and him a Gibraltan - last referendum on the issue something like 99.6% voted to remain British, 0.4% voted to become Spanish).

[Timbuk2]

Well as this is a re-visit of this 3 year-old-topic ...

... it's funny to note how much emotion there was about fox-hunting back then, and the fact that now nearly four years later hardly anything has changed despite all the fuss and the changes to the law.

This boxing-day's hunt had the biggest ever turn-out.

I guess people don't like to be told how to live their lives.

[RandBlade]

You're right. The law seems to have failed, and nobody seems to care any more.

[Nessus]

And are you surprised? Please.