as I said India, this was purely a question of interest and your excellent answer has clarified things. I am sorry if you thought i was trying to bring it into the pro/anti hunting debate or trivialise the subject because that certainly was not my intention.
as I said India, this was purely a question of interest and your excellent answer has clarified things. I am sorry if you thought i was trying to bring it into the pro/anti hunting debate or trivialise the subject because that certainly was not my intention.
I
india
Guest
Sorry horses4eva888, I've only recently returned to the forum after having a spell in hospital.
Unfortunately, "poor ponie's" owner never got back in touch, presumably because he knew I wasn't prepared to pay the price he was asking for him.
I like to think that after all the publicity, he eventually found a home where he could have chance to behave like a youngster and mature naturally...
No need to apologise! I hope you're fully recovered.
Hopefully he did find somewhere I'm sure someone will have taken him in, little cutie like that.
they would have a bit of a hooley and some snorting and flags flying, but thats to be expected anyway because its a horse, they wouldnt trash fences, loose all their manners (if we were leading/riding at the time) or become dangerous towards us or each other (or they might just look up and go "oh wish i was going out with them
" then go back to eating).they are both used to 50 odd people cantering past, half of the classes we compete in are filled to the brim like this (showing) its never been an issue because we never let it, they have to be on best behaviour when we ride, no matter what is going on, and this applies to general riding as well as hunting.
its common decency to find out what you need to know, i dont expect to be spoon-fed by my teachers to learn or when my lessons are- i go out of my way to find out because I want to know.
people really need to realise that some things are normal, like cantering round the field and having a buck *shock horror*
, but they should have respect for their boundaries and humans first and foremost.
Y
Yann
Guest
I'm pleased to hear it, you're very lucky. However for a horse that isn't used to it the fact remains, rightly or wrongly that it can put them in danger. That alone suggests to me that the hunt, which is not a normal everyday occurence for most people, has an obligation to tell people who might be affected.
It's not spoon feeding to warn someone so they can take precautions to avoid potential injury or damage because of your actions, it's common courtesy as far as I'm concerned.
I think you've got this all wrong, except for the conclusion. About 250,000 foxes are killed each year, or were, before the ban. Hunts only accounted for 25,000 of these. So, you could make the point that hunts were an inefficient means of control and could easily be replaced by shooting. This, in fact, is what has happened. However, because fox populations are no longer tolerated by the country hunt people, fox populations have been brought down to below what they were pre-ban. That means that the number of 250,000 must have gone up some -- shooters are taking what they were before, plus more than the 25,000 done in by hunts.
Last edited:
Y
Yann
Guest
I think you can safely congratulate yourself here.. in the space of just one post you have managing to not only strengthen the snotty, arrogant, socialite stereotype that hunt-supporters have spent so much time and energy trying to dissprove but also to completely ridicule and deface all the rational and educated discussion that the pro-hunt supporters have put forward on this thread. What a shame for them to have had all their time and words ruined by one ignorant fools witterings.
Oh and just on the off chance you ever prise your head out of your own proverbial for long enough to open your eyes and look outside of your own tiny, sheltered world a well known quote you may want to take heed of "ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME" .. And on that note I'm off to take my smog-dusted nose with me and take the dogs for a run in the village.. or I may pop round to visit my parents on the farm I grew up on.
Good way to have this thread closed down. The insult probably also violates the terms of use agreement. Plus, you didn't come up with any argument against what she said, just made an ad-hominen attack. That's always a sign of someone lacking a substantial argument.
Y
Yann
Guest
Please be even handed and critique the post she was responding to, I think you'll find plenty in it to object to as well, especially considering it was unprompted.
Hmm, I've reread all her posts and still can't find a direct personal attack on another member here. 
I think perhaps it would do you well to read some of the earlier posts I put across on this thread before accusing me of such things. My post was, as Yann pointed out, in reponse to an extremely rude and unecessary rant at "smog-nosed townie dwellers" which unfortunately tarred this otherwise civil and informative thread.
Although your insight into hunting being acceptable because "all animals in the wild suffer slow, agonising deaths anyway" was truly enlightening believe me, if you are now choosing to comment purely to bicker about my post and cause friction on the thread then perhaps you should review the Terms and Conditions yourself. If you have anything further useful to add on the subject being discussed here then please do so, otherwise please do not bring your attempted troublemaking on this thread again. Thank you
Hmm, I've reread all her posts and still can't find a direct personal attack on another member here.
It might not be a personal attack on any one person in particular but the post was none the less aggressive, designed to kick off an argument and have this thread closed, and also an insult to everyone who has managed to keep this debate going in a civil manner. Personally speaking I am insulted by the insinuation that "townies" are simply not allowed an opinion on this matter and should keep their mouths shut because it does not concern them and they do not understand the issue at hand which is rubbish.
One post like that and the whole discussion goes up in the air, mods come along and it's subject closed and it does bait people as you can clearly see. I think some members are protective of the way the thread is going and would like to see it stay that way, not be belittled by one person who decides to come along and insult half the forum for daring to have an opinion.
To add my two penneth I have enjoyed this thread where views etc have been exchanged in a mature and sensible way (in the main) I take the position that whilst I may not agree with another persons view, I do repect that view. Lets keep it civilised and if people wish to trade insults then find another thread to do it on or PM each other but please don't let this deteriorate into a slanging match
There's a big difference between insulting a class of people, (After all, the antis and hunters have insulted each other all the time, even wishing death on the other.) and making a specific insult toward a fellow member.
Please don't try to argue that there is no distinction.
Please don't try to argue that there is no distinction.
What class of people did she insult? Sorry but I got the impression that she insulted every anti-hunt person by saying "but the fact is that most of the people who are opposed to hunting can't see past the end of their smog-dusted little noses to the wider picture of tradition, community and reality of country life" I do not see that being anti-hunt is a way of defining class, merely a way of showing a common cause.
I found the that the post came across as a rant against those who do not share the same beliefs as the poster. At no point was an argument raised that would make people review or question their own beliefs about hunting. Throughout the post was designed to insult and attempt to riddicule all anti-hunting people. As others have posted NOT all anti-hunt people live in the town/city, therefore this post on the whole becomes worthless as it is based on a totally misguided assumption about the way that anti-hunts people live their lives.
Personaly the only reason that I can see for the post was to try to incite people into getting into an argument, at no point was there any room for debate, nor was it just the persons own opinion that they like hunting. For any anti-hunter they could read the post as being personally insulting as this is the way that it is written.
I found the that the post came across as a rant against those who do not share the same beliefs as the poster. At no point was an argument raised that would make people review or question their own beliefs about hunting. Throughout the post was designed to insult and attempt to riddicule all anti-hunting people. As others have posted NOT all anti-hunt people live in the town/city, therefore this post on the whole becomes worthless as it is based on a totally misguided assumption about the way that anti-hunts people live their lives.
Personaly the only reason that I can see for the post was to try to incite people into getting into an argument, at no point was there any room for debate, nor was it just the persons own opinion that they like hunting. For any anti-hunter they could read the post as being personally insulting as this is the way that it is written.
It might be eye-opening to some of you to do a study on the percentage of "townies" who are opposed to hunting versus the percentage of what-ever you-call-your-country-people who are opposed to hunting. I would wager they're quite different.
Madam_Sarah
One things for certain, if you where a true working class farmer, you'd be to busy working the land and/or caring for your stock to have time take on extra part time jobs AND study at university.
I'm sorry but I find this a little bit offensive. My OH is a working class farmer and also works full time, he also studied at uni. Perhaps your idea of a farmer is a little chocolate-boxy? Farmers have to work very hard to make money due to the falling value of dead stock and the cut back in subsidies.
I am sure they are quite different. Does anyone have the figures? Whatever they are, I am sure there isn't unanimity of opinion in either town or country.
Why would a proportion of country-dwellers be anti-hunting? And why would a proportion of city-dwellers be pro-hunting? Are there a greater proportion of 'antis' in the country than there are 'pros' in the city?
Why would hunt people tolerate foxes less? Have they become more of a pest and are they causing more damage? If not, then surely killing more of them now can't be justified - at least, not on grounds of population control. Doesn't this prove that the population control argument was (and is) bogus?
newrider.com