TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Fox Hunting in England
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fox Hunting in England

post #1 of 15
2/18/09 at 9:32am
Thread Starter 
Is fox hunting abhorrent but none of goverments business?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/talkin...p-comments-nav

The author says:

Quote:
I fundamentally don't understand fox hunting. In a perfect example of the deranged manner in which government's talk, the Burn's report said the practise "seriously compromises the welfare of the fox". I'd say that the chase physically exhausts and genuinely terrifies the animal, before it is savagely torn to pieces by hounds. The concept that someone would enjoy this is contrary to my definition of a well-rounded human being. If foxes need to be shot, let them be shot, but there seems something inherently wrong with humans savouring the unnecessary trauma of animals.
But :

Quote:
And yet, the ban of fox hunting was a trivial and simple minded encroachment on the rights and freedoms of British citizens. There is only one fact which needs mentioning: no humans were hurt in the hunt. The principles of liberalism do not extend to animals. Our system is (theoretically) based on allowing people to do as they choose, unless their behaviour affects someone else. It is the basis of Christianity ('do unto others') and Kantian moral philosophy, on which so much of our culture and political legitimacy rests.

If we expand this equation to animals we find ourselves in very dodgy territory indeed. Is eating meat OK? How about Halal meat, the practise of killing according to Islamic rules which got Ken Livingstone into such hot water when he challenged it during his stint as London mayor? Or neutering cats? Did the cat ask to be neutered? Would it wish to be? Certainly not. We neuter cats for the practicalities of human life, not theirs. The basic tenets of liberalism simply won't expand to include animals, nor should they. Does that mean that the cruel neglect of pets should be legal too? I'm afraid it may do. Living with your principles requires hard choices, and so does legislating for them.
I think it is a very narrow interpretation of the responsibility of a government to say that legislation should only be for the purposes of protecting humans. A country's principals and morals are reflected in their laws. I can't see how "The basic tenets of liberalism" are endangered here.

Some of the reader comments indicate that at some agree that fox hunting shouldn't be banned.
Reply
post #2 of 15
2/18/09 at 9:46am
While I don't much care for the idea of hunting for any reason other than food, with no predators, I think humans need to step in.
As long as the population isn't being decimated, then I would agree that it really isn't an issue for the government to focus on.

That's my short take on it.
Reply
post #3 of 15
2/18/09 at 9:50am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlyn View Post
While I don't much care for the idea of hunting for any reason other than food, with no predators, I think humans need to step in.
As long as the population isn't being decimated, then I would agree that it really isn't an issue for the government to focus on.

That's my short take on it.
You don't have any problem with the cruelty aspect of it?

Quote:
.. the chase physically exhausts and genuinely terrifies the animal, before it is savagely torn to pieces by hounds.
Reply
post #4 of 15
2/18/09 at 10:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlyn View Post
While I don't much care for the idea of hunting for any reason other than food, with no predators, I think humans need to step in.
As long as the population isn't being decimated, then I would agree that it really isn't an issue for the government to focus on.

That's my short take on it.
Have you ever been to a C0k (sorry, can't use the official word, but it's the other name for a rooster) fight? I haven't but I DID see the injuries left on the "winner" when a guy I worked with stopped by work on the way to the "rooster" vet (this was in Guam, and it is a time honored "tradition" there). The poor thing was near death, and he was the champion. The loser died in the ring. The government HAS stepped in, and while it still happens, there are laws against it.

At least, with rooster fighting the oponants are usually equally matched (as long as it is done "honorably"). How is one fox and a pack of hounds fair?

Honestly, I didn't know they still did this in England. I know they still had fox hunts, but I thought it was more symbolic than anything....I didn't realize the fox was still torn apart. I thought society was above that by now....
Reply
post #5 of 15
2/18/09 at 10:25am
I've always thought it to be a barbaric sport so the sooner they come down hard on the hunters won't come soon enough for me.

It's not like it's a quick bullet their taking to end their lives, their being torn to shreds by beagles

I have foxes in the trees at the bottom of my garden, so i'd hit the roof if anything happend to them
Reply
post #6 of 15
2/18/09 at 12:01pm
I think the practice is disgusting.
But it doesn't even come close to the barbarity of the annual slaughter of baby seals sanctioned and fully approved by the Canadian Government for the seal skin trade. A quarter of a million seals clubbed to death every year, year in and year out.
Truly barbaric.
Reply
post #7 of 15
2/18/09 at 12:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I think the practice is disgusting.
But it doesn't even come close to the barbarity of the annual slaughter of baby seals sanctioned and fully approved by the Canadian Government for the seal skin trade. A quarter of a million seals clubbed to death every year, year in and year out.
Truly barbaric.
Now this is truly frightening to me. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this issue.
Reply
post #8 of 15
2/18/09 at 12:14pm
Thread Starter 
FYI - Given that this is essentially an animal lovers site I wouldn't expect many people to support the practice of fox hunting.

The question raised in the article is whether it is the governments place to ban fox hunting or whether that should be considered outside the role of government.
Reply
post #9 of 15
2/18/09 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post
The question raised in the article is whether it is the governments place to ban fox hunting or whether that should be considered outside the role of government.
For me it should be both the public and the goverment, because the public have been crying for a ban for years.

Listen to the public, then get the goverment to give the seal of approval
Reply
post #10 of 15
2/19/09 at 10:25am
I thought when I was in High School they passed a law to stop fox hunting. I guess I was wrong. I personally think any "sport" that involves the death of an animal (execpt when the end result is food" is wrong. Fox hunting, bull fights, "rooster" fights, dog fights, the list could go on for ever. It is one thing to hunt an animal for food that is just animal nature, but watching animals distroy each other or people distroying animals for entertainment is just sick. We can't throw two people in a ring to kill each other, why is it ok to do it with animals?
Reply
post #11 of 15
2/19/09 at 10:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emy4cats View Post
I thought when I was in High School they passed a law to stop fox hunting. I guess I was wrong. I personally think any "sport" that involves the death of an animal (execpt when the end result is food" is wrong. Fox hunting, bull fights, "rooster" fights, dog fights, the list could go on for ever. It is one thing to hunt an animal for food that is just animal nature, but watching animals distroy each other or people distroying animals for entertainment is just sick. We can't throw two people in a ring to kill each other, why is it ok to do it with animals?
Oh but we do. It's called "boxing" where grown men beat each other around the head and body causing brain damage sometimes (just look at Mohammed Ali) and sometimes even death. People pay big bucks to see these matches.
Reply
post #12 of 15
2/19/09 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Oh but we do. It's called "boxing" where grown men beat each other around the head and body causing brain damage sometimes (just look at Mohammed Ali) and sometimes even death. People pay big bucks to see these matches.
Very true, but at least both participants have the choice whether to get in the ring or not. Nobody asked the fox.
Reply
post #13 of 15
2/19/09 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post
You don't have any problem with the cruelty aspect of it?
As I said, that was my short take on it.
Now that I have internet again, I'll comment further.

Here in the US, that is not considered hunting, not by any hunters I know.
That is simply chase and slaughter.
Deer hunting with dogs was outlawed here for much the same reasons.

If it were an actual hunt instead of a mounted lynch mob, I'd say let them do it, regardless of whether or not I agree or understand it as long as the population was left with healthy numbers.
Hunting should mean the quick and painless death of a gun, bow, or crossbow shot, not a cross country harassment and butcher.
Reply
post #14 of 15
2/19/09 at 2:28pm
I never knew that's what the fox hunting was all about. I thought the hunters shot the fox then the dogs collected them. I had it all wrong.
Reply
post #15 of 15
2/19/09 at 7:08pm
I think it should be put to the vote & hopefully outlawed It's indecent for a "civilized" culture to approve of such butchery
Ditto for clubbing baby seals! I think that killing fur-bearing animals anally with electric shocks equally disgusting
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Fox Hunting in England