Hunting for sport

seanoconn

Saw this classy number in the car park earlier today. I understand why we hunt to eat and understand the need to cull and control animal numbers. But why snuff out a life in the name of sport?

Any thoughts?

arran77

You're just jealous that I've got a bigger car :P

daviesee

Maybe the driver was celebrating that they now run free.

Maybe.....

monkimark

Is that stuck on? Looks like a kid left their toy on the car.

At least put it at the front of the bonnet if you're going to do it.

dmclite-3.0

I keep a can of expanding foam filler in the boot of my car for this sort of thing. A quick 4 second blast up the exhaust pipe and hey presto, justice is served. I keep it in my kit alongside my portable grider with cutting disc, knife, rope, masking tape, gloves and balaclava. Oh and a bottle of bleach and some cable ties, I do like so subvert.

seanoconn

monkimark wrote:

Is that stuck on? Looks like a kid left their toy on the car.

At least put it at the front of the bonnet if you're going to do it.

I'm guessing super glue.... and no, I didn't put it on there.

team47b

seanoconn wrote:

I understand why we hunt to eat and understand the need to cull and control animal numbers

I'm glad that you understand these things, so can you tell me why do we NEED to hunt to eat?

I haven't found it necessary and I hear you have Tesco

VTech

team47b wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

I understand why we hunt to eat and understand the need to cull and control animal numbers

I'm glad that you understand these things, so can you tell me why do we NEED to hunt to eat?

I haven't found it necessary and I hear you have Tesco

Its called "Life"
Its happened since the dawn of time yet some people argue against it.

I dont like it myself but I also think that people should have choices.
I dont get the issue about people/horses/dogs "packing" after fox's either.

The fox is a pack animal, they rarely go after their pray single handed and work in a pack so to be chased by a pack is in fact the circle of life.
That part to me isnt the issue however, I just think morally its wrong to get fun from death or anger.

seanoconn

team47b wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

I understand why we hunt to eat and understand the need to cull and control animal numbers

I'm glad that you understand these things, so can you tell me why do we NEED to hunt to eat?

I haven't found it necessary and I hear you have Tesco

Because the flesh of animals tastes good. If you don't eat meat, you become addicted to cakes and sweets and develop diabetes?

arran77

seanoconn wrote:

team47b wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

I understand why we hunt to eat and understand the need to cull and control animal numbers

I'm glad that you understand these things, so can you tell me why do we NEED to hunt to eat?

I haven't found it necessary and I hear you have Tesco

Because the flesh of animals tastes good. If you don't eat meat, you become addicted to cakes and sweets and develop diabetes?

I think there might be some logic in there somewhere

dmclite-3.0

arran77 wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

team47b wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

I understand why we hunt to eat and understand the need to cull and control animal numbers

I'm glad that you understand these things, so can you tell me why do we NEED to hunt to eat?

I haven't found it necessary and I hear you have Tesco

Because the flesh of animals tastes good. If you don't eat meat, you become addicted to cakes and sweets and develop diabetes?

I think there might be some logic in there somewhere

Nope, none, nada, njet, nein, no no no no no no. none.

mr_goo

seanoconn wrote:

Saw this classy number in the car park earlier today. I understand why we hunt to eat and understand the need to cull and control animal numbers. But why snuff out a life in the name of sport?

Any thoughts?

Was it in a disabled parking bay. I tend to find that is where most RR drivers tend to park up.

MichaelW

Clarissa Dixon Wright has a recipie for fox casserole

blackpoolkev

It's sometimes necessary to manage troublesome creatures in your environment.(What would you do with a rat in your kitchen?)

However - killing animals for fun is bang out of order. Anyone involved in such activity should be treated with suspicion.

arran77

blackpoolkev wrote:

It's sometimes necessary to manage troublesome creatures in your environment.(What would you do with a rat in your kitchen?)

However - killing animals for fun is bang out of order. Anyone involved in such activity should be treated with suspicion.

You could be talking about this place

VTech

blackpoolkev wrote:

It's sometimes necessary to manage troublesome creatures in your environment.(What would you do with a rat in your kitchen?)

However - killing animals for fun is bang out of order. Anyone involved in such activity should be treated with suspicion.

I would fix dat rat, dats what I woulda do, I woulda fixed dat rat !

GiantMike

VTech wrote:

That part to me isnt the issue however, I just think morally its wrong to get fun from death or anger.

Not always. It's would be fun to snipe litterers and people who don't clean up after their dogs. They make me angry, and their deaths would be quite fun. And morally justified.

monkimark

VTech wrote:

The fox is a pack animal, they rarely go after their pray single handed and work in a pack so to be chased by a pack is in fact the circle of life.

What, are you confusing foxes with wolves? I've rarely seen foxes in groups, or even pairs.

Mr Goo wrote:

Was it in a disabled parking bay. I tend to find that is where most RR drivers tend to park up.

Well, he does have a blue badge so that doesn't seem unreasonable

GiantMike

monkimark wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Was it in a disabled parking bay. I tend to find that is where most RR drivers tend to park up.

Well, he does have a blue badge so that doesn't seem unreasonable

He might have been attacked by a pack of foxes.

laurentian

seanoconn wrote:

Saw this classy number in the car park earlier today. I understand why we hunt to eat and understand the need to cull and control animal numbers. But why snuff out a life in the name of sport?

Any thoughts?

If you understand the need to control animal numbers surely it should be done in the most humane way possible? If a fox is pursued by a pack of hounds, it either gets away unscathed or it dies immediately. It is never injured to later die an agonising death as can happen with an animal that is shot but not killed, snared, or, heaven forbid, the victim of indiscriminate poisoning. The "sport" aspect is a by product of the unpredictability of the pursued animal and not the primary reason for people riding to hounds.

VTech wrote:

I dont like it myself but I also think that people should have choices.
I dont get the issue about people/horses/dogs "packing" after fox's either.

The fox is a pack animal, they rarely go after their pray single handed and work in a pack so to be chased by a pack is in fact the circle of life.
That part to me isnt the issue however, I just think morally its wrong to get fun from death or anger.

Foxes do not hunt in packs.

The situation we have right now is not a good one for the fox. This may sound perverse given that hunting of them is "banned" (although the law is so unworkable and poorly constructed that it hasn't stopped) but historically, habitats for foxes (and other hunted species) were maintained in order to ensure that the pastime could continue for all stakeholders. It is the very people, and only these people, who hunt that have a vested financial interest in the maintenance of a healthy fox population - they have no viable "business" if there is no healthy population of their prey.

Right now (at least if hunting were properly banned) there is not a single body with any "business" interest in the fox population of the UK being maintained.

arran77

laurentian wrote:

If you understand the need to control animal numbers surely it should be done in the most humane way possible?

Yes it should, but can you prove this :roll:

laurentian wrote:

If a fox is pursued by a pack of hounds, it either gets away unscathed or it dies immediately. It is never injured to later die an agonising death as can happen with an animal that is shot but not killed, snared, or, heaven forbid, the victim of indiscriminate poisoning.

seanoconn

arran77 wrote:

laurentian wrote:

If you understand the need to control animal numbers surely it should be done in the most humane way possible?

Yes it should, but can you prove this :roll:

laurentian wrote:

If a fox is pursued by a pack of hounds, it either gets away unscathed or it dies immediately. It is never injured to later die an agonising death as can happen with an animal that is shot but not killed, snared, or, heaven forbid, the victim of indiscriminate poisoning.

Good point arran. But I believe all hounds are issued with side arms and the first hound on the scene dispatches the fox as humanely as possible. That or the pack rips the fox to pieces and the fox hopes to die immediately.

arran77

seanoconn wrote:

arran77 wrote:

laurentian wrote:

If you understand the need to control animal numbers surely it should be done in the most humane way possible?

Yes it should, but can you prove this :roll:

laurentian wrote:

If a fox is pursued by a pack of hounds, it either gets away unscathed or it dies immediately. It is never injured to later die an agonising death as can happen with an animal that is shot but not killed, snared, or, heaven forbid, the victim of indiscriminate poisoning.

Good point arran. But I believe all hounds are issued with side arms and the first hound on the scene dispatches the fox as humanely as possible. That or the pack rips the fox to pieces and the fox hopes to die immediately.

Thanks sean, that cleared thing up for me, it just seemed like a real generalisation from laurentian but it all makes sense now

giant_man

The thing is, this 'hunting' and bloodsports in general is so damned outdated and old fashioned. You get a dozen idiots in red jackets chasing one fox, sometimes catching and killling it and sometimes not, and they claim they do it to keep the numbers of these beautiful creatures down, complete BS!!!

Way over time to BAN this ridiculous spectacle forever ...

laurentian

Good points perhaps but my post was to make the point that IF the population needs to be controlled (as alluded to by the OP) hunting with hounds is the most humane option . . . unless anyone can think of another?


Edited to say that it may not be the most effective method

daviesee

giant man wrote:

Way over time to BAN this ridiculous spectacle forever ...

It was banned in 2005. Please keep up.
Or was that a sarcastic post?
We need a sarcasm smilie.

seanoconn

laurentian wrote:

Good points perhaps but my post was to make the point that IF the population needs to be controlled (as alluded to by the OP) hunting with hounds is the most humane option . . . unless anyone can think of another?


Edited to say that it may not be the most effective method

A skilled marksman would be the most humane option.

arran77

seanoconn wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Good points perhaps but my post was to make the point that IF the population needs to be controlled (as alluded to by the OP) hunting with hounds is the most humane option . . . unless anyone can think of another?


Edited to say that it may not be the most effective method

A skilled marksman would be the most humane option.

Good point, and we'll have loads of them with the government continuing the cull of of armed forces

bompington

giant man wrote:

The thing is, this 'hunting' and bloodsports in general is so damned outdated and old fashioned. You get a dozen idiots in red jackets chasing one fox, sometimes catching and killling it and sometimes not, and they claim they do it to keep the numbers of these beautiful creatures down, complete BS!!!

Way over time to BAN this ridiculous spectacle forever ...

Let me get this right, we should ban things because they're "outdated and old fashioned"? Like horses (superseded by cars), violins (synthesisers), bicycles (cars again)?
Technology has now reached the point where most things could be set up to run automatically, so then we could ban people.

Or as an alternative hypothesis, the vast, vast majority of opposition to hunting is simple old-fashioned class hatred. Maybe that ridiculous spectacle should be banned.

laurentian

seanoconn wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Good points perhaps but my post was to make the point that IF the population needs to be controlled (as alluded to by the OP) hunting with hounds is the most humane option . . . unless anyone can think of another?


Edited to say that it may not be the most effective method

A skilled marksman would be the most humane option.

I think that could well be the most effective but, for reasons posted earlier, not the most humane

Mikey23

Out dated and old fashioned huh...that's me done for then