Yes but that is for a healthy male fox. If the purpose is to cull the weaker specimens then they will be much lighter so perhaps the use of the eagle makes the job more precise
I
india
Guest
Yes but that is for a healthy male fox. If the purpose is to cull the weaker specimens then they will be much lighter so perhaps the use of the eagle makes the job more precise
I think advice from the chairman of the Hawk Board and other falconery experts against using birds of prey to hunt foxes due to welfare and cruelty issues clearly shows what an inhumane practice it is.
ETA: Just been pondering......
Isn't one of the arguments put forward in favour of foxhunting is the fox doesn't have any natural predators in this country????
Last edited by a moderator:
Y
Yann
Guest
I think even this discussion has shown that to be nothing more than a flimsy justification which doesn't wash.
why is it in life when you have two groups, one that wishes to carry out an activity and one that does not agree with that particular activity, that the onus always falls on the group who wish to do it, to justify their actions to the ones against it?
Also when trying to condem someones actions we quickly embrace the "evidence" from those where the evidence supports our stance whilst dismissing out of hand evidence from those who are in opposition.
Just my ponderings
Also when trying to condem someones actions we quickly embrace the "evidence" from those where the evidence supports our stance whilst dismissing out of hand evidence from those who are in opposition.
Just my ponderings
Because if they weren't doing it in the first place there'd be nothing to have to justify.
I'm not saying you need to justify anything to me, I am still on the fence about the subject, but I can see why the ones doing the activity would be the ones having to justify it
Because there's usually some justification for why people are against it. You could equally claim why it is down to a criminal to defend himself against his crime.. just because someone disagreed with what he did why should he have to answer to anyone else about what he chooses to do? He might think it's perfectly acceptable to beat an OAP for £20 out of her purse... so why should we stop him? If you want to insist on doing something that a large percentage of people disagree with you doing then yes you should have to justify it, it's what living in a civilised society involves. I'm sure there are plenty of people involved in dog-fighting, racial attacks, terrorism etc. who feel what they do is perfectly acceptable - should they not have to justify their actions to those against it? Should they just be left to 'get on with it'? I'm not trying to be extremist here but that is just how I see it, it's a black and white case of basic humanity and educated reasoning, any dispute should not be treated any differently.
I haven't seen any reliable, unbiased evidence that foxes do not suffer when hunted. Nor that fox-hunting actually controls the fox population. Nor that the fox population is actually a recognised problem that cannot be controlled. I would be happy to reconsider my perspective if I were given any compelling pro-hunt evidence on these points.
But isn't the saying innocent until proven guilty and the the prosecutors are responsible for proving guilt.
Indeed, and there has already been a lot of conclusive, unbiased evidence and research on the anti-hunt side. So now it is over to the prosecuted to defend themselves in light of the evidence shown.
but the same thing keeps happening one side gets out there 'experts' to give evidence then the other side says thats rubbish and get's their 'expert' and it's a never ending cycle.
Y
Yann
Guest
I'm not sure it is, times change and attitudes evolve, and certain practices that were once carried out without question fall into disuse or disrepute.
But hunting hasn't fallen into disuse or disrepute and as long as there are people that want to do it i don't think it should. To me there are far more important things that should have been dealt with before hunting things which affect the majority of people rather than just those that hunt and those that oppose it. I think most people in the Uk couldn't have cared less about hunting mostly because it didn't affect them at all. Hunting is such a small thing in the grand scheme of things.
Yes there are worse evils in our society against animal welfare but two wrongs don't make a right and all that, just because one thing is worse than another it doesn't mean the other isn't still wrong surely? Times are changing, we have a more educated view on animal rights and welfare these days, the fact we're actually applying that to something should be applauded no matter how small the shift in society's opinion. Factory farming etc. still has a long way to go yes, but it's a step in the right direction towards at least some more civilised treatment of animals in this country.
I was discussing this thread wth my OH this last night and he made a very interesting observation on exactly this point.
He pointed out that it used to be perfectly acceptable for a man to beat his wife as a form of discipline and if it were not for the changes made to law by people stating the argument against this practice, we would not have the laws we do today to protect women from men who would otherwise find this an accceptable practice.
Before I get jumped on, I am not comparing wife beating to fox hunting, I am making a point about the way laws are changed and the way we move forward as a society as quoted above by Yann
As much as we like to think we are civilised i really don't think we are. We pat ourselves on the back when we 'think' we have done something good when in fact we are probably not much better people than we were a few hundred years ago. I think sometimes people forget that hunting is actually a natural instinct for humans as well as animals how do you think we survived all those thousands of years? Why do we get such an adrenaline rush when we do it?
I don't want to argue but i don't understand what gives anyone the right to tell them what they can and can't do
I don't want to argue but i don't understand what gives anyone the right to tell them what they can and can't do
I love the way this thread has gone....
....from a particular hunt being inconsiderate into a full debate on fox hunting (and some elephants thrown in if I remember rightly), and now we are onto wife beating!!!
Some fab arguments all round, what an eloquent bunch you all are!
....from a particular hunt being inconsiderate into a full debate on fox hunting (and some elephants thrown in if I remember rightly), and now we are onto wife beating!!!
Some fab arguments all round, what an eloquent bunch you all are!
newrider.com