Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

I can understand hunting animals for food; it's usually done as humanely as possible (most traps are banned), and for a practical reason. It's therefore not really any different morally from buying in a supermarket.

Deer culling, just like fox culling, is also done for practical reasons, and in a fairly humane manner (shooting).

Halal food, whilst the animals aren't pre-stunned, tends to be fairly quick and painless, with the added benefit that the animals are treated with respect throughout the the process.

Fox hunting is none of the above. There's nothing practical, efficient or humane about a small army of horse riders poncing around the countryside (causing all sorts of damage), chasing a pack of dogs which will hunt and tear apart a small number of foxes. They also give away their attitude towards the animals and humans in how they behave with saboteurs, who often get attacked too.

So it's very unfair to try and equate a dislike of fox-hunting (which was banned due to cruelty, remember, even if it's ignored) to a dislike of the wealthy. If the same people went out into the countryside on foot, with a rifle, and killed the foxes that way, almost no-one would have any objection to it.

In other words, as I said, you're fine with certain forms of animal cruelty, which you'd like to explain away, but not with others.

Enterprise_1701C

When hunting was the norm the dogs would go straight for the neck of the fox, death would be very quick.

In nature, wild dogs would ttack and kill such animals, as wild lions attack and kill animals, it is the way of the world.

And don't tell me foxes are sweet innocent things that only kill for food, they kill for fun, you onky have to see the inside of a hen house after one has been in it.

Whilst foxes were hunted they were less inclined towards human contact, now they are becoming ever braver and they will get worse, it is no good shooting them, they good be in agony for weeks whilst dying a very slow death.

At least hunting meant they did not want human contact. All these idiots feeding them do not help.

cogito

There's a considerable difference between culling an elderly deer which is starionary when it is shot and a highly mobile young fox moving at speed. The deer is usually dead instantly (the shooter is a well trained marksman) whereas a fox is likely to be wounded rather than dead and eventually dies a lingering and painful death. Shooting a fox is just not the easy painless solution that some on here like to pretend.

cogito

ilovehouses wrote: »

Use a live trap cage and then shoot it?

100% effective if you can persuade the fox to step inside. Can you see the flaw here?

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

In other words, as I said, you're fine with certain forms of animal cruelty, which you'd like to explain away, but not with others.

I'm not fine with any unnecessary animal suffering.

westernpromise

There's nothing necessary about angling, horse racing, or halal butchery. However, these are popular with people the Labour party sucks up to, so they're OK with you.

wunferall

ilovehouses wrote: »

I sort of assumed they'd need to be baited and placed somewhere strategic like next to a chicken shed, rabbit hutch or the dustbins. The biggest flaw I'd imagine is that Foxes are pretty smart so there's an element of skill involved which will add cost.

If the objective is to cull a similar number to those killed by hunts cages wouldn't need to be super effective anyway because chasing around the countryside on horseback with a pack of dogs hardly sounds like an efficient culling method.

I suspect the humble motor car is a more effective way of keeping numbers down but less of a thrill which is, of course, the priority when fox hunting.

Because cars can jump walls and gates, paddle across rocky streams and drive over hilly, muddy fields of course. :wall:

wunferall

Arklight wrote: »

The Tories' idea of a fine day out is riding over the countryside, thrashing the serfs who get in their way, and tearing foxes apart. So I don!!!8217;t think there!!!8217;s much point expecting animal welfare legislation from that political party.

Over 13.6 million voted Tory in the 2017 General Election. According to your POV more serfs are needed - and more horses as well as more foxes please. Maybe a few more whips too, thrashing for the use of.

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm not fine with any unnecessary animal suffering.

So you want to stop fox hunting? This is emboldening foxes, causing more suffering for other animals, chickens, pet rabbits, pet guinea pigs, in fact a lot of pets get killed by foxes.

Herzlos

I don't agree with horse or dog racing, or people ownig pets who can't look after them. I don't view halal as unnecessarily cruel.

If someone on here is trying to claim fox hunting is humane because dogs go for the jugular (despite that not being the case - it's hard to bite something in the next when it's running away from you, nor is it a clean and quick kill), then cutting the jugular with a knife must also be humane.

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

So you want to stop fox hunting? This is emboldening foxes, causing more suffering for other animals, chickens, pet rabbits, pet guinea pigs, in fact a lot of pets get killed by foxes.

I want to stop hunting foxes using horses and dogs. By all means kill foxes but why not do it in a more effective and humane way?

Are foxes really becoming bold because they aren't being chased by trumpets and dogs? Or are they being forced into more urban settings and pets due to loss of habitat?