The stupid hunt ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest 2
  • Start date Start date
Just as an added thought with all this discussion re suffering. How many on here would condone euthansia?
Of an animal? No problem, as long as it is done as humanely as possible. I especially favour euthanasia of animals that are suffering and beyond help.

Of a human? That would depend if the human concerned really wanted it! However, to prevent any possibility of abuse, it's probably better that it remains outlawed. I don't object to it on religious grounds though.

How does this relate to the hunting of foxes?
 
Apex predators, who themselves have no natural predators, do not need human intervention to control their populations. They managed well enough by themselves before we appeared on the scene.

Other apex predator species, like polar bears, are not territorial, and their numbers are regulated by availability of prey animals - seals in the case of polar bears. They too do not need humans to control their numbers.


...

Anyway, the point is that it is not always necessary to control carnivores with no natural predators.

Yes, but what are the actual mechanics of this "regulation"? It's often from death thru starvation/disease and the deliberate killing off of the young by their parents.
 
Because it's jolly good fun I would imagine, I never had the chance to go pre-ban :( but I will one day when I have my own hoss again. I would be going because I would enjoy the galloping across country and the traditions and everything. However, I am not squeamish and would not look away if the final killing happened to occur in front of me. I would not be going only to see that but it is part and parcel of hunting and therefore I would not hide away.
Interesting you mention tradition. That's something that hasn't been discussed at all (probably because it's not such a big issue). First of all, let me say that I don't see anything wrong with enjoying a tradition per se. It's not hard to understand why it gives us a good feeling - it links us to the past, provides a reassuring sense of continuity with the lives of our ancestors, and unites communities by providing an shared activity. I do wonder sometimes though whether an activity being traditional is enough of a reason to carry on with it if there are other good reasons to stop it. I guess it's a matter of balance - do the bad aspects of a tradition outweigh the good? In the case of foxhunting, its intrinsic value as a tradition only exists for those involved in it, whereas the 'antis' have no such sense. That's one reason why views differ so strongly.
 
Yes, but what are the actual mechanics of this "regulation"? It's often from death thru starvation/disease and the deliberate killing off of the young by their parents.
Breeding and birth rates may be affected by external factors such as food availability. However, in the case of the fox, an excess of cubs is born each year and many of these die before reaching adulthood - in other words, birth rate is not the limiting factor for foxes. That explains why overall numbers are restored so quickly - every year there are more than enough juveniles available to fill any 'gaps' left when older foxes die (or are killed).
 
so hunt sabatuers are all misunderstood pacifists then? and I not argueing for or against hunting
I expect hunt saboteurs comprise a mix of peaceable and violent characters, thoughtful and misguided, pleasant and unpleasant, well-meaning and ill-meaning. Not sure of the exact mix, mind you - but I wouldn't necessarily tar 'em all with the same brush.
 
Other than sentimentality I don't really see why some one would have a problem with what happens to a fox (or any other animal for that matter) after it has died.
In general, I would agree with you. But there are a few ways of treating animals after they're dead that would disgust/upset me enough to want to do something about it, and that have nothing to do with sentimentality. I hesitate to state the sort of thing I have in mind because I don't want to upset people. Suffice to say that, even after an animal's death, its dignity may be respected or offended.

I have to agree with you Kc, my OH is a farmer so I can't say too much but I have a much bigger problem with factory farming than any other "animal welfare" issue, a animal that lives is these conditions that has never seen the sky has had its whole life wasted. I would much rather eat a pheasant that has been shot in the wild, I mean ok it may have suffered for a very short time but whos to say that the chicken bought from a super market had a quick humane death because I can assure you that many don't, at least the pheasant has had a relatively natural life.
I couldn't agree more, Cerys. Factory farming entails far more animal suffering than foxhunting ever did.
 
Breeding and birth rates may be affected by external factors such as food availability. However, in the case of the fox, an excess of cubs is born each year and many of these die before reaching adulthood - in other words, birth rate is not the limiting factor for foxes. That explains why overall numbers are restored so quickly - every year there are more than enough juveniles available to fill any 'gaps' left when older foxes die (or are killed).


In other words, the ones that "die before reaching adulthood" come to an unpleasant end even tho man is in no way involved -- they are killed by other animals, killed by their own parents, or die from lack of food.
 
I expect hunt saboteurs comprise a mix of peaceable and violent characters, thoughtful and misguided, pleasant and unpleasant, well-meaning and ill-meaning. Not sure of the exact mix, mind you - but I wouldn't necessarily tar 'em all with the same brush.

A lot like the hunt supporters then? :D
 
Foxes are not nice cuddly creatures, they are fast and viscious.

my parents had a pet fox when they were first married just over 40 years ago, the fox was in no means vicious and lived a very happy and content life, just like one of their dogs, they also had rabbits and the fox didnt bother them in the slightest
 
One thing that bothers me about the antis who can't stand the thought of any suffering on the part of an animal is that they REALLY aren't concerned about the animals -- they're concerned about their own psyhic pain. These people suffer from a surfeit of empathy. Empathy is a good thing but only to a degree. If it is so strong in you that you feel so miserable about certain things that you want to reorder the world in such a way that the animals involved experience more pain and suffering than before, but because you don't see it because the pain and suffering is swept under the rug, then that is IMMORAL. You are putting the real pain and suffering of many animals behind the relief of your own empathy-plagued psyche.
 
In other words, the ones that "die before reaching adulthood" come to an unpleasant end even tho man is in no way involved -- they are killed by other animals, killed by their own parents, or die from lack of food.
Yes, of course. I imagine the unpleasantness of the end will vary, but few deaths in the wild are benign. I'm not sure what bearing this has on whether or not apex predators need to be controlled by man though.
 
Ok, this is NOT a cue to start an arguement, i have followed this thread and participated, as it seems to have gone slightly O/T, it would be interesting to know how many of us (either for/against) have participated, spectated at local hunter trials..........interesting to see peoples views:):)
 
You telling me it's gone O/T lol!! It started as a thread about a girl whoose horse had jumped in a couple of fields after a hunt went by, to a blimmin net based argument that is like 38 pages long lmao!!! :rolleyes:
Still, debates are healthy i guess!
 
One thing that bothers me about the antis who can't stand the thought of any suffering on the part of an animal is that they REALLY aren't concerned about the animals -- they're concerned about their own psyhic pain. These people suffer from a surfeit of empathy. Empathy is a good thing but only to a degree. If it is so strong in you that you feel so miserable about certain things that you want to reorder the world in such a way that the animals involved experience more pain and suffering than before, but because you don't see it because the pain and suffering is swept under the rug, then that is IMMORAL. You are putting the real pain and suffering of many animals behind the relief of your own empathy-plagued psyche.
Now, this post is thought-provoking! :) I am sure there is more than a grain of truth in what you say. However, can the fact that empathy is sometimes misdirected be used to argue that people should have less empathy?
 
You telling me it's gone O/T lol!! It started as a thread about a girl whoose horse had jumped in a couple of fields after a hunt went by, to a blimmin net based argument that is like 38 pages long lmao!!! :rolleyes:
Still, debates are healthy i guess!

Agreed, thanks for reminding me of the original thread!! Us horsey lot are a different class - unique :):):D
 
One thing that bothers me about the antis who can't stand the thought of any suffering on the part of an animal is that they REALLY aren't concerned about the animals -- they're concerned about their own psyhic pain. These people suffer from a surfeit of empathy. Empathy is a good thing but only to a degree. If it is so strong in you that you feel so miserable about certain things that you want to reorder the world in such a way that the animals involved experience more pain and suffering than before, but because you don't see it because the pain and suffering is swept under the rug, then that is IMMORAL. You are putting the real pain and suffering of many animals behind the relief of your own empathy-plagued psyche.


? Not too sure what you mean by psyhic pain, do you mean psychic pain, physical pain? Thanks.
 
newrider.com