Animal welfare group in Warrington town centre today

Animal welfare group in Warrington town centre today

Animal welfare group in Warrington town centre today

First published in News

AN animal welfare group will be in the town centre on Saturday calling on Warrington South MP David Mowat to make his feelings clear over an impending vote in the House of Commons regarding hunting.

Fight Against Cameron’s Cruelty Trust (FACCT) will be handing out leaflets and waving placards from 10.30am asking Mr Mowat how he will vote on the act which is thought to ‘water down’ current hunting restrictions.

Comments (48)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:36pm Sat 22 Mar 14

PageA says...

What does the fox say? If I was a fox...and was given the choice between a bullet from an unseen marksman a kilometre away, that either killed me straight away or left me to struggle for days before dying in a field unaware of what had happened..or being given a head start and chased by a Pack of animals, that I understood, using skills that I had inherited through thousands of years of evolution..having being chased by wolves across the British countryside for centuries before man removed my natural predator...I think I'd go with the more natural option.
What does the fox say? If I was a fox...and was given the choice between a bullet from an unseen marksman a kilometre away, that either killed me straight away or left me to struggle for days before dying in a field unaware of what had happened..or being given a head start and chased by a Pack of animals, that I understood, using skills that I had inherited through thousands of years of evolution..having being chased by wolves across the British countryside for centuries before man removed my natural predator...I think I'd go with the more natural option. PageA
  • Score: -3

1:27pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Daz@SankeyviaOrford says...

The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .
The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare . Daz@SankeyviaOrford
  • Score: -2

1:40pm Sat 22 Mar 14

PageA says...

Daz@SankeyviaOrford wrote:
The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .
I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed.
[quote][p][bold]Daz@SankeyviaOrford[/bold] wrote: The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .[/p][/quote]I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed. PageA
  • Score: -6

2:02pm Sat 22 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

PageA wrote:
Daz@SankeyviaOrford wrote:
The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .
I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed.
Your second comment contradict's your first comment PageA, Either way I do agree with "No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed". It's a rich man's sport as is shooting tigers, elephant's and the like. What pleasure do they get from that when the animals in question, and as you stated, don't have a fighting chance! I could have some sympathy if they actually eat any of these animals, but they don't it's just legalised murder for the highest bidder.
Still Grumpy
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Daz@SankeyviaOrford[/bold] wrote: The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .[/p][/quote]I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed.[/p][/quote]Your second comment contradict's your first comment PageA, Either way I do agree with "No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed". It's a rich man's sport as is shooting tigers, elephant's and the like. What pleasure do they get from that when the animals in question, and as you stated, don't have a fighting chance! I could have some sympathy if they actually eat any of these animals, but they don't it's just legalised murder for the highest bidder. Still Grumpy GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 6

2:31pm Sat 22 Mar 14

PageA says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
Daz@SankeyviaOrford wrote:
The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .
I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed.
Your second comment contradict's your first comment PageA, Either way I do agree with "No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed". It's a rich man's sport as is shooting tigers, elephant's and the like. What pleasure do they get from that when the animals in question, and as you stated, don't have a fighting chance! I could have some sympathy if they actually eat any of these animals, but they don't it's just legalised murder for the highest bidder.
Still Grumpy
Maybe you've read it wrong. My point is that no one objects to the animal being killed, it's the way that it is killed and who does the killing that people object to. I don't think that's about animal welfare..the animal still dies. If it is shot from afar, it dies a death that can be slow and that it doesn't understand. It has no concept of high calibre rifles. Your problem, like many who object to fox hunting isn't that foxes are being killed..it's that Toffs are enjoying dressing up and killing foxes. That's your issue. It's about the men on the horses not the animal. Your problem is the 'Rich' men. This discussion has nothing to do with sly old Mr.Fox
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Daz@SankeyviaOrford[/bold] wrote: The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .[/p][/quote]I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed.[/p][/quote]Your second comment contradict's your first comment PageA, Either way I do agree with "No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed". It's a rich man's sport as is shooting tigers, elephant's and the like. What pleasure do they get from that when the animals in question, and as you stated, don't have a fighting chance! I could have some sympathy if they actually eat any of these animals, but they don't it's just legalised murder for the highest bidder. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Maybe you've read it wrong. My point is that no one objects to the animal being killed, it's the way that it is killed and who does the killing that people object to. I don't think that's about animal welfare..the animal still dies. If it is shot from afar, it dies a death that can be slow and that it doesn't understand. It has no concept of high calibre rifles. Your problem, like many who object to fox hunting isn't that foxes are being killed..it's that Toffs are enjoying dressing up and killing foxes. That's your issue. It's about the men on the horses not the animal. Your problem is the 'Rich' men. This discussion has nothing to do with sly old Mr.Fox PageA
  • Score: -3

3:13pm Sat 22 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
Daz@SankeyviaOrford wrote:
The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .
I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed.
Your second comment contradict's your first comment PageA, Either way I do agree with "No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed". It's a rich man's sport as is shooting tigers, elephant's and the like. What pleasure do they get from that when the animals in question, and as you stated, don't have a fighting chance! I could have some sympathy if they actually eat any of these animals, but they don't it's just legalised murder for the highest bidder.
Still Grumpy
Maybe you've read it wrong. My point is that no one objects to the animal being killed, it's the way that it is killed and who does the killing that people object to. I don't think that's about animal welfare..the animal still dies. If it is shot from afar, it dies a death that can be slow and that it doesn't understand. It has no concept of high calibre rifles. Your problem, like many who object to fox hunting isn't that foxes are being killed..it's that Toffs are enjoying dressing up and killing foxes. That's your issue. It's about the men on the horses not the animal. Your problem is the 'Rich' men. This discussion has nothing to do with sly old Mr.Fox
No sorry PageA I do object to any animal that is killed for anything other than food, I am not also confused about who can actually carry out these murders rich or poor. We all know it's a rich man's "sport" as anyone else who is not a Toff would not do it. I do not see any sport in shooting anything that moves who does not see it is coming! That is not "sport" that is plain legalised murder.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Daz@SankeyviaOrford[/bold] wrote: The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .[/p][/quote]I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed.[/p][/quote]Your second comment contradict's your first comment PageA, Either way I do agree with "No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed". It's a rich man's sport as is shooting tigers, elephant's and the like. What pleasure do they get from that when the animals in question, and as you stated, don't have a fighting chance! I could have some sympathy if they actually eat any of these animals, but they don't it's just legalised murder for the highest bidder. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Maybe you've read it wrong. My point is that no one objects to the animal being killed, it's the way that it is killed and who does the killing that people object to. I don't think that's about animal welfare..the animal still dies. If it is shot from afar, it dies a death that can be slow and that it doesn't understand. It has no concept of high calibre rifles. Your problem, like many who object to fox hunting isn't that foxes are being killed..it's that Toffs are enjoying dressing up and killing foxes. That's your issue. It's about the men on the horses not the animal. Your problem is the 'Rich' men. This discussion has nothing to do with sly old Mr.Fox[/p][/quote]No sorry PageA I do object to any animal that is killed for anything other than food, I am not also confused about who can actually carry out these murders rich or poor. We all know it's a rich man's "sport" as anyone else who is not a Toff would not do it. I do not see any sport in shooting anything that moves who does not see it is coming! That is not "sport" that is plain legalised murder. GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 7

3:19pm Sat 22 Mar 14

PageA says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
Daz@SankeyviaOrford wrote:
The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .
I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed.
Your second comment contradict's your first comment PageA, Either way I do agree with "No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed". It's a rich man's sport as is shooting tigers, elephant's and the like. What pleasure do they get from that when the animals in question, and as you stated, don't have a fighting chance! I could have some sympathy if they actually eat any of these animals, but they don't it's just legalised murder for the highest bidder.
Still Grumpy
Maybe you've read it wrong. My point is that no one objects to the animal being killed, it's the way that it is killed and who does the killing that people object to. I don't think that's about animal welfare..the animal still dies. If it is shot from afar, it dies a death that can be slow and that it doesn't understand. It has no concept of high calibre rifles. Your problem, like many who object to fox hunting isn't that foxes are being killed..it's that Toffs are enjoying dressing up and killing foxes. That's your issue. It's about the men on the horses not the animal. Your problem is the 'Rich' men. This discussion has nothing to do with sly old Mr.Fox
No sorry PageA I do object to any animal that is killed for anything other than food, I am not also confused about who can actually carry out these murders rich or poor. We all know it's a rich man's "sport" as anyone else who is not a Toff would not do it. I do not see any sport in shooting anything that moves who does not see it is coming! That is not "sport" that is plain legalised murder.
Foxes are very efficient killing machines themselves. To not control their numbers would be a disaster for Poultry farmers. A single fox can wipe out a whole chicken shed and only eat one bird..if any. Now we have removed it's natural predator how do you suggest we limit the number of foxes roaming the countryside Grumpy?
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Daz@SankeyviaOrford[/bold] wrote: The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .[/p][/quote]I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed.[/p][/quote]Your second comment contradict's your first comment PageA, Either way I do agree with "No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed". It's a rich man's sport as is shooting tigers, elephant's and the like. What pleasure do they get from that when the animals in question, and as you stated, don't have a fighting chance! I could have some sympathy if they actually eat any of these animals, but they don't it's just legalised murder for the highest bidder. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Maybe you've read it wrong. My point is that no one objects to the animal being killed, it's the way that it is killed and who does the killing that people object to. I don't think that's about animal welfare..the animal still dies. If it is shot from afar, it dies a death that can be slow and that it doesn't understand. It has no concept of high calibre rifles. Your problem, like many who object to fox hunting isn't that foxes are being killed..it's that Toffs are enjoying dressing up and killing foxes. That's your issue. It's about the men on the horses not the animal. Your problem is the 'Rich' men. This discussion has nothing to do with sly old Mr.Fox[/p][/quote]No sorry PageA I do object to any animal that is killed for anything other than food, I am not also confused about who can actually carry out these murders rich or poor. We all know it's a rich man's "sport" as anyone else who is not a Toff would not do it. I do not see any sport in shooting anything that moves who does not see it is coming! That is not "sport" that is plain legalised murder.[/p][/quote]Foxes are very efficient killing machines themselves. To not control their numbers would be a disaster for Poultry farmers. A single fox can wipe out a whole chicken shed and only eat one bird..if any. Now we have removed it's natural predator how do you suggest we limit the number of foxes roaming the countryside Grumpy? PageA
  • Score: 1

7:15pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Freeborn John says...

If a group of dog owning young gentlemen from one of our local estates decided to chase the same fox for miles on their pit bikes until it was exhausted and then encouraged their pets to rip it to pieces, the cells would be standing room only.
What's all that about then?
If a group of dog owning young gentlemen from one of our local estates decided to chase the same fox for miles on their pit bikes until it was exhausted and then encouraged their pets to rip it to pieces, the cells would be standing room only. What's all that about then? Freeborn John
  • Score: 5

7:34pm Sat 22 Mar 14

PageA says...

Freeborn John wrote:
If a group of dog owning young gentlemen from one of our local estates decided to chase the same fox for miles on their pit bikes until it was exhausted and then encouraged their pets to rip it to pieces, the cells would be standing room only.
What's all that about then?
Dunno,

Farmers invited the hunts onto their land to keep the number of foxes, who were attacking young lambs and poultry, to a manageable level. Men on bikes with dogs running wild up and down suburban streets might be seen as a bit dangerous for innocent bystanders. Lets wait for the first one to attack a local child or foam at the mouth and see what happens
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: If a group of dog owning young gentlemen from one of our local estates decided to chase the same fox for miles on their pit bikes until it was exhausted and then encouraged their pets to rip it to pieces, the cells would be standing room only. What's all that about then?[/p][/quote]Dunno, Farmers invited the hunts onto their land to keep the number of foxes, who were attacking young lambs and poultry, to a manageable level. Men on bikes with dogs running wild up and down suburban streets might be seen as a bit dangerous for innocent bystanders. Lets wait for the first one to attack a local child or foam at the mouth and see what happens PageA
  • Score: -1

12:50pm Sun 23 Mar 14

muckerman says...

All the clichés about chicken coups are nonsense. But whatever your view on that one, the main issue remains that certain types of people derive great pleasure in ripping animals to pieces. This is what most people find disgusting and abhorrent. These sadists try to justify their cruelty in the name of conservation but it doesn’t wash - with most of us.
All the clichés about chicken coups are nonsense. But whatever your view on that one, the main issue remains that certain types of people derive great pleasure in ripping animals to pieces. This is what most people find disgusting and abhorrent. These sadists try to justify their cruelty in the name of conservation but it doesn’t wash - with most of us. muckerman
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Sun 23 Mar 14

PageA says...

muckerman wrote:
All the clichés about chicken coups are nonsense. But whatever your view on that one, the main issue remains that certain types of people derive great pleasure in ripping animals to pieces. This is what most people find disgusting and abhorrent. These sadists try to justify their cruelty in the name of conservation but it doesn’t wash - with most of us.
It might be nonsense to you, but to people who rely on livestock to make a living it's very serious. I think your attitude reiterates the view of many who living the country which is that people who live in towns just don't get it.

I'll ask again...a more humane way to control the numbers of foxes rather than one that allows them to use their natural instinct for survival?

Bullets? Traps? Poison? What?
[quote][p][bold]muckerman[/bold] wrote: All the clichés about chicken coups are nonsense. But whatever your view on that one, the main issue remains that certain types of people derive great pleasure in ripping animals to pieces. This is what most people find disgusting and abhorrent. These sadists try to justify their cruelty in the name of conservation but it doesn’t wash - with most of us.[/p][/quote]It might be nonsense to you, but to people who rely on livestock to make a living it's very serious. I think your attitude reiterates the view of many who living the country which is that people who live in towns just don't get it. I'll ask again...a more humane way to control the numbers of foxes rather than one that allows them to use their natural instinct for survival? Bullets? Traps? Poison? What? PageA
  • Score: -1

3:36pm Sun 23 Mar 14

pognoogle says...

I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better.

As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering.

Fox Hunting is not acceptable.
I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better. As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering. Fox Hunting is not acceptable. pognoogle
  • Score: 3

3:53pm Sun 23 Mar 14

muckerman says...

PageA wrote:
muckerman wrote:
All the clichés about chicken coups are nonsense. But whatever your view on that one, the main issue remains that certain types of people derive great pleasure in ripping animals to pieces. This is what most people find disgusting and abhorrent. These sadists try to justify their cruelty in the name of conservation but it doesn’t wash - with most of us.
It might be nonsense to you, but to people who rely on livestock to make a living it's very serious. I think your attitude reiterates the view of many who living the country which is that people who live in towns just don't get it.

I'll ask again...a more humane way to control the numbers of foxes rather than one that allows them to use their natural instinct for survival?

Bullets? Traps? Poison? What?
I said, whatever your view on whether there is a need for killing, there is no shortage people who get off on ripping foxes apart. You did not address this main point, but instead came back with the old country v town people cliché ...Typical.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muckerman[/bold] wrote: All the clichés about chicken coups are nonsense. But whatever your view on that one, the main issue remains that certain types of people derive great pleasure in ripping animals to pieces. This is what most people find disgusting and abhorrent. These sadists try to justify their cruelty in the name of conservation but it doesn’t wash - with most of us.[/p][/quote]It might be nonsense to you, but to people who rely on livestock to make a living it's very serious. I think your attitude reiterates the view of many who living the country which is that people who live in towns just don't get it. I'll ask again...a more humane way to control the numbers of foxes rather than one that allows them to use their natural instinct for survival? Bullets? Traps? Poison? What?[/p][/quote]I said, whatever your view on whether there is a need for killing, there is no shortage people who get off on ripping foxes apart. You did not address this main point, but instead came back with the old country v town people cliché ...Typical. muckerman
  • Score: 2

4:07pm Sun 23 Mar 14

PageA says...

muckerman wrote:
PageA wrote:
muckerman wrote:
All the clichés about chicken coups are nonsense. But whatever your view on that one, the main issue remains that certain types of people derive great pleasure in ripping animals to pieces. This is what most people find disgusting and abhorrent. These sadists try to justify their cruelty in the name of conservation but it doesn’t wash - with most of us.
It might be nonsense to you, but to people who rely on livestock to make a living it's very serious. I think your attitude reiterates the view of many who living the country which is that people who live in towns just don't get it.

I'll ask again...a more humane way to control the numbers of foxes rather than one that allows them to use their natural instinct for survival?

Bullets? Traps? Poison? What?
I said, whatever your view on whether there is a need for killing, there is no shortage people who get off on ripping foxes apart. You did not address this main point, but instead came back with the old country v town people cliché ...Typical.
No, I said that your viewpoint strengthens that argument. Your stance is the same as Grumpy's. You are concerned about the people doing the hunting and their enjoyment, not the animal.
[quote][p][bold]muckerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muckerman[/bold] wrote: All the clichés about chicken coups are nonsense. But whatever your view on that one, the main issue remains that certain types of people derive great pleasure in ripping animals to pieces. This is what most people find disgusting and abhorrent. These sadists try to justify their cruelty in the name of conservation but it doesn’t wash - with most of us.[/p][/quote]It might be nonsense to you, but to people who rely on livestock to make a living it's very serious. I think your attitude reiterates the view of many who living the country which is that people who live in towns just don't get it. I'll ask again...a more humane way to control the numbers of foxes rather than one that allows them to use their natural instinct for survival? Bullets? Traps? Poison? What?[/p][/quote]I said, whatever your view on whether there is a need for killing, there is no shortage people who get off on ripping foxes apart. You did not address this main point, but instead came back with the old country v town people cliché ...Typical.[/p][/quote]No, I said that your viewpoint strengthens that argument. Your stance is the same as Grumpy's. You are concerned about the people doing the hunting and their enjoyment, not the animal. PageA
  • Score: -4

4:20pm Sun 23 Mar 14

muckerman says...

Not really, it’s a bit of both. I think the main reason for banning it in the first place was that the general public (who should have an equal say as the bumpkins on what should happen in the country) thought the practice outdated, barbaric and cruel. Whether any control is needed is up for debate, and not as black and white as you say. I was pleased to see a fox in our garden last year and felt no need to get me a gun.
Not really, it’s a bit of both. I think the main reason for banning it in the first place was that the general public (who should have an equal say as the bumpkins on what should happen in the country) thought the practice outdated, barbaric and cruel. Whether any control is needed is up for debate, and not as black and white as you say. I was pleased to see a fox in our garden last year and felt no need to get me a gun. muckerman
  • Score: 2

5:35pm Sun 23 Mar 14

PageA says...

muckerman wrote:
Not really, it’s a bit of both. I think the main reason for banning it in the first place was that the general public (who should have an equal say as the bumpkins on what should happen in the country) thought the practice outdated, barbaric and cruel. Whether any control is needed is up for debate, and not as black and white as you say. I was pleased to see a fox in our garden last year and felt no need to get me a gun.
How were your chickens?
[quote][p][bold]muckerman[/bold] wrote: Not really, it’s a bit of both. I think the main reason for banning it in the first place was that the general public (who should have an equal say as the bumpkins on what should happen in the country) thought the practice outdated, barbaric and cruel. Whether any control is needed is up for debate, and not as black and white as you say. I was pleased to see a fox in our garden last year and felt no need to get me a gun.[/p][/quote]How were your chickens? PageA
  • Score: -1

5:53pm Sun 23 Mar 14

muckerman says...

PageA wrote:
muckerman wrote:
Not really, it’s a bit of both. I think the main reason for banning it in the first place was that the general public (who should have an equal say as the bumpkins on what should happen in the country) thought the practice outdated, barbaric and cruel. Whether any control is needed is up for debate, and not as black and white as you say. I was pleased to see a fox in our garden last year and felt no need to get me a gun.
How were your chickens?
Ha, Ha!
Don't think it caused a shortage at Tesco.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muckerman[/bold] wrote: Not really, it’s a bit of both. I think the main reason for banning it in the first place was that the general public (who should have an equal say as the bumpkins on what should happen in the country) thought the practice outdated, barbaric and cruel. Whether any control is needed is up for debate, and not as black and white as you say. I was pleased to see a fox in our garden last year and felt no need to get me a gun.[/p][/quote]How were your chickens?[/p][/quote]Ha, Ha! Don't think it caused a shortage at Tesco. muckerman
  • Score: -1

5:55pm Sun 23 Mar 14

PageA says...

pognoogle wrote:
I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better.

As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering.

Fox Hunting is not acceptable.
Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter.
[quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better. As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering. Fox Hunting is not acceptable.[/p][/quote]Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter. PageA
  • Score: -2

11:56am Mon 24 Mar 14

pognoogle says...

PageA wrote:
pognoogle wrote:
I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better.

As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering.

Fox Hunting is not acceptable.
Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter.
Of course you would try to escape, that's a natural reaction for any living thing. However, there's a difference between being chased by natural predators such as wolves, who were hunting to kill and to survive, and being chased by (armed) fatties on horses with full bellied dogs who are bred and encouraged to aggressively tear animals apart. For fun.

Like I said before, fox hunting is not acceptable.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better. As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering. Fox Hunting is not acceptable.[/p][/quote]Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter.[/p][/quote]Of course you would try to escape, that's a natural reaction for any living thing. However, there's a difference between being chased by natural predators such as wolves, who were hunting to kill and to survive, and being chased by (armed) fatties on horses with full bellied dogs who are bred and encouraged to aggressively tear animals apart. For fun. Like I said before, fox hunting is not acceptable. pognoogle
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Mon 24 Mar 14

cookie1974 says...

There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us.

It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.
There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us. It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have. cookie1974
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Mon 24 Mar 14

PageA says...

pognoogle wrote:
PageA wrote:
pognoogle wrote:
I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better.

As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering.

Fox Hunting is not acceptable.
Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter.
Of course you would try to escape, that's a natural reaction for any living thing. However, there's a difference between being chased by natural predators such as wolves, who were hunting to kill and to survive, and being chased by (armed) fatties on horses with full bellied dogs who are bred and encouraged to aggressively tear animals apart. For fun.

Like I said before, fox hunting is not acceptable.
Again, You are showing your attitude towards the people taking part in the hunt. A fox understands being chased and the time that it takes to die, if caught, is speedy. Shot from a mile away by a posh, fatty, hurray henry when you're minding your own business seems barbaric to me. Youve said nothing about whats best for the animal just that you object to fattys having fun
[quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better. As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering. Fox Hunting is not acceptable.[/p][/quote]Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter.[/p][/quote]Of course you would try to escape, that's a natural reaction for any living thing. However, there's a difference between being chased by natural predators such as wolves, who were hunting to kill and to survive, and being chased by (armed) fatties on horses with full bellied dogs who are bred and encouraged to aggressively tear animals apart. For fun. Like I said before, fox hunting is not acceptable.[/p][/quote]Again, You are showing your attitude towards the people taking part in the hunt. A fox understands being chased and the time that it takes to die, if caught, is speedy. Shot from a mile away by a posh, fatty, hurray henry when you're minding your own business seems barbaric to me. Youve said nothing about whats best for the animal just that you object to fattys having fun PageA
  • Score: 2

1:19pm Mon 24 Mar 14

PageA says...

cookie1974 wrote:
There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us.

It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.
I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this
[quote][p][bold]cookie1974[/bold] wrote: There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us. It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.[/p][/quote]I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this PageA
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Uncoded says...

I'm not sure that fox hunting can be classed as a sport. Sports, by nature are competitive events. A fox getting ripped up by a pack of dogs isn't competitive.

To make things fair, i think there should be people that are on the foxes team. Their aim would be to take out the hunters on the horses (the horses and dogs don't know what they are doing, so should not be harmed if possible).

The hunter, once taken out, could have their head mounted and displayed in public houses.

I'm not sure my idea will catch on though.
I'm not sure that fox hunting can be classed as a sport. Sports, by nature are competitive events. A fox getting ripped up by a pack of dogs isn't competitive. To make things fair, i think there should be people that are on the foxes team. Their aim would be to take out the hunters on the horses (the horses and dogs don't know what they are doing, so should not be harmed if possible). The hunter, once taken out, could have their head mounted and displayed in public houses. I'm not sure my idea will catch on though. Uncoded
  • Score: 5

1:59pm Mon 24 Mar 14

TheCommentatorWrites says...

PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
Daz@SankeyviaOrford wrote:
The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .
I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed.
Your second comment contradict's your first comment PageA, Either way I do agree with "No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed". It's a rich man's sport as is shooting tigers, elephant's and the like. What pleasure do they get from that when the animals in question, and as you stated, don't have a fighting chance! I could have some sympathy if they actually eat any of these animals, but they don't it's just legalised murder for the highest bidder.
Still Grumpy
Maybe you've read it wrong. My point is that no one objects to the animal being killed, it's the way that it is killed and who does the killing that people object to. I don't think that's about animal welfare..the animal still dies. If it is shot from afar, it dies a death that can be slow and that it doesn't understand. It has no concept of high calibre rifles. Your problem, like many who object to fox hunting isn't that foxes are being killed..it's that Toffs are enjoying dressing up and killing foxes. That's your issue. It's about the men on the horses not the animal. Your problem is the 'Rich' men. This discussion has nothing to do with sly old Mr.Fox
PageA. - I OBJECT TO THE ANIMALS BEING KILLED.
So a fox will kill some hens, protect the hens better. I keep hens, I know.
Put your rubbish away to deter the urban foxes.
What's your problem?!
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Daz@SankeyviaOrford[/bold] wrote: The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .[/p][/quote]I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed.[/p][/quote]Your second comment contradict's your first comment PageA, Either way I do agree with "No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed". It's a rich man's sport as is shooting tigers, elephant's and the like. What pleasure do they get from that when the animals in question, and as you stated, don't have a fighting chance! I could have some sympathy if they actually eat any of these animals, but they don't it's just legalised murder for the highest bidder. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Maybe you've read it wrong. My point is that no one objects to the animal being killed, it's the way that it is killed and who does the killing that people object to. I don't think that's about animal welfare..the animal still dies. If it is shot from afar, it dies a death that can be slow and that it doesn't understand. It has no concept of high calibre rifles. Your problem, like many who object to fox hunting isn't that foxes are being killed..it's that Toffs are enjoying dressing up and killing foxes. That's your issue. It's about the men on the horses not the animal. Your problem is the 'Rich' men. This discussion has nothing to do with sly old Mr.Fox[/p][/quote]PageA. - I OBJECT TO THE ANIMALS BEING KILLED. So a fox will kill some hens, protect the hens better. I keep hens, I know. Put your rubbish away to deter the urban foxes. What's your problem?! TheCommentatorWrites
  • Score: 3

2:25pm Mon 24 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

PageA wrote:
cookie1974 wrote:
There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us.

It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.
I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this
So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie1974[/bold] wrote: There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us. It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.[/p][/quote]I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this[/p][/quote]So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA? GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 1

3:19pm Mon 24 Mar 14

PageA says...

TheCommentatorWrites wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
Daz@SankeyviaOrford wrote:
The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .
I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed.
Your second comment contradict's your first comment PageA, Either way I do agree with "No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed". It's a rich man's sport as is shooting tigers, elephant's and the like. What pleasure do they get from that when the animals in question, and as you stated, don't have a fighting chance! I could have some sympathy if they actually eat any of these animals, but they don't it's just legalised murder for the highest bidder.
Still Grumpy
Maybe you've read it wrong. My point is that no one objects to the animal being killed, it's the way that it is killed and who does the killing that people object to. I don't think that's about animal welfare..the animal still dies. If it is shot from afar, it dies a death that can be slow and that it doesn't understand. It has no concept of high calibre rifles. Your problem, like many who object to fox hunting isn't that foxes are being killed..it's that Toffs are enjoying dressing up and killing foxes. That's your issue. It's about the men on the horses not the animal. Your problem is the 'Rich' men. This discussion has nothing to do with sly old Mr.Fox
PageA. - I OBJECT TO THE ANIMALS BEING KILLED.
So a fox will kill some hens, protect the hens better. I keep hens, I know.
Put your rubbish away to deter the urban foxes.
What's your problem?!
Have no problem. To confirm you rely on your hens for your livelyhood? It's what feeds your family and keeps a roof over their heads?
[quote][p][bold]TheCommentatorWrites[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Daz@SankeyviaOrford[/bold] wrote: The ban on hunting has done more harm than good in our country side. The management of our country side and traditions are suffering in the name of animal welfare .[/p][/quote]I don't think it's about animal welfare to be honest. Personally I think the animals welfare would be best served by a head start and fighting chance than a bullet in the head. No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed.[/p][/quote]Your second comment contradict's your first comment PageA, Either way I do agree with "No one seems to have a problem with the foxes being killed". It's a rich man's sport as is shooting tigers, elephant's and the like. What pleasure do they get from that when the animals in question, and as you stated, don't have a fighting chance! I could have some sympathy if they actually eat any of these animals, but they don't it's just legalised murder for the highest bidder. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Maybe you've read it wrong. My point is that no one objects to the animal being killed, it's the way that it is killed and who does the killing that people object to. I don't think that's about animal welfare..the animal still dies. If it is shot from afar, it dies a death that can be slow and that it doesn't understand. It has no concept of high calibre rifles. Your problem, like many who object to fox hunting isn't that foxes are being killed..it's that Toffs are enjoying dressing up and killing foxes. That's your issue. It's about the men on the horses not the animal. Your problem is the 'Rich' men. This discussion has nothing to do with sly old Mr.Fox[/p][/quote]PageA. - I OBJECT TO THE ANIMALS BEING KILLED. So a fox will kill some hens, protect the hens better. I keep hens, I know. Put your rubbish away to deter the urban foxes. What's your problem?![/p][/quote]Have no problem. To confirm you rely on your hens for your livelyhood? It's what feeds your family and keeps a roof over their heads? PageA
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Mon 24 Mar 14

PageA says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
cookie1974 wrote:
There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us.

It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.
I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this
So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?
If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie1974[/bold] wrote: There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us. It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.[/p][/quote]I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this[/p][/quote]So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?[/p][/quote]If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject PageA
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Mon 24 Mar 14

pognoogle says...

PageA wrote:
pognoogle wrote:
PageA wrote:
pognoogle wrote:
I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better.

As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering.

Fox Hunting is not acceptable.
Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter.
Of course you would try to escape, that's a natural reaction for any living thing. However, there's a difference between being chased by natural predators such as wolves, who were hunting to kill and to survive, and being chased by (armed) fatties on horses with full bellied dogs who are bred and encouraged to aggressively tear animals apart. For fun.

Like I said before, fox hunting is not acceptable.
Again, You are showing your attitude towards the people taking part in the hunt. A fox understands being chased and the time that it takes to die, if caught, is speedy. Shot from a mile away by a posh, fatty, hurray henry when you're minding your own business seems barbaric to me. Youve said nothing about whats best for the animal just that you object to fattys having fun
Page A it would seem that once again you're misreading comments and getting on your high horse (pardon the pun) for arguings sake.
By writing that animals (any animal) does not deserve to suffer unnecessarily shows what I think is best for the animal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not fully keen on the idea of shooting either, but I understand it to be a 'better' and hopefully quicker death than being ripped apart by dogs. The act of being unecessarily chased to your death by pet dogs is disgusting enough and serves no purpose other than for fun, whereas at least protecting livestock is a slight justification.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better. As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering. Fox Hunting is not acceptable.[/p][/quote]Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter.[/p][/quote]Of course you would try to escape, that's a natural reaction for any living thing. However, there's a difference between being chased by natural predators such as wolves, who were hunting to kill and to survive, and being chased by (armed) fatties on horses with full bellied dogs who are bred and encouraged to aggressively tear animals apart. For fun. Like I said before, fox hunting is not acceptable.[/p][/quote]Again, You are showing your attitude towards the people taking part in the hunt. A fox understands being chased and the time that it takes to die, if caught, is speedy. Shot from a mile away by a posh, fatty, hurray henry when you're minding your own business seems barbaric to me. Youve said nothing about whats best for the animal just that you object to fattys having fun[/p][/quote]Page A it would seem that once again you're misreading comments and getting on your high horse (pardon the pun) for arguings sake. By writing that animals (any animal) does not deserve to suffer unnecessarily shows what I think is best for the animal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not fully keen on the idea of shooting either, but I understand it to be a 'better' and hopefully quicker death than being ripped apart by dogs. The act of being unecessarily chased to your death by pet dogs is disgusting enough and serves no purpose other than for fun, whereas at least protecting livestock is a slight justification. pognoogle
  • Score: 1

4:00pm Mon 24 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
cookie1974 wrote:
There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us.

It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.
I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this
So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?
If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject
But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument?
Still Grumpy
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie1974[/bold] wrote: There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us. It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.[/p][/quote]I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this[/p][/quote]So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?[/p][/quote]If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject[/p][/quote]But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument? Still Grumpy GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Mon 24 Mar 14

PageA says...

pognoogle wrote:
PageA wrote:
pognoogle wrote:
PageA wrote:
pognoogle wrote:
I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better.

As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering.

Fox Hunting is not acceptable.
Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter.
Of course you would try to escape, that's a natural reaction for any living thing. However, there's a difference between being chased by natural predators such as wolves, who were hunting to kill and to survive, and being chased by (armed) fatties on horses with full bellied dogs who are bred and encouraged to aggressively tear animals apart. For fun.

Like I said before, fox hunting is not acceptable.
Again, You are showing your attitude towards the people taking part in the hunt. A fox understands being chased and the time that it takes to die, if caught, is speedy. Shot from a mile away by a posh, fatty, hurray henry when you're minding your own business seems barbaric to me. Youve said nothing about whats best for the animal just that you object to fattys having fun
Page A it would seem that once again you're misreading comments and getting on your high horse (pardon the pun) for arguings sake.
By writing that animals (any animal) does not deserve to suffer unnecessarily shows what I think is best for the animal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not fully keen on the idea of shooting either, but I understand it to be a 'better' and hopefully quicker death than being ripped apart by dogs. The act of being unecessarily chased to your death by pet dogs is disgusting enough and serves no purpose other than for fun, whereas at least protecting livestock is a slight justification.
I disagree that not sharing your opinion constitutes me getting on my high horse. It's a difference of opinion. I disagree that shooting is better for the animal and would invite you to do your own research into the limitations and cruelty associated with this option. Protecting livestock is more than a slight justification if you rely on livestock for your livelyhood.
[quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better. As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering. Fox Hunting is not acceptable.[/p][/quote]Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter.[/p][/quote]Of course you would try to escape, that's a natural reaction for any living thing. However, there's a difference between being chased by natural predators such as wolves, who were hunting to kill and to survive, and being chased by (armed) fatties on horses with full bellied dogs who are bred and encouraged to aggressively tear animals apart. For fun. Like I said before, fox hunting is not acceptable.[/p][/quote]Again, You are showing your attitude towards the people taking part in the hunt. A fox understands being chased and the time that it takes to die, if caught, is speedy. Shot from a mile away by a posh, fatty, hurray henry when you're minding your own business seems barbaric to me. Youve said nothing about whats best for the animal just that you object to fattys having fun[/p][/quote]Page A it would seem that once again you're misreading comments and getting on your high horse (pardon the pun) for arguings sake. By writing that animals (any animal) does not deserve to suffer unnecessarily shows what I think is best for the animal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not fully keen on the idea of shooting either, but I understand it to be a 'better' and hopefully quicker death than being ripped apart by dogs. The act of being unecessarily chased to your death by pet dogs is disgusting enough and serves no purpose other than for fun, whereas at least protecting livestock is a slight justification.[/p][/quote]I disagree that not sharing your opinion constitutes me getting on my high horse. It's a difference of opinion. I disagree that shooting is better for the animal and would invite you to do your own research into the limitations and cruelty associated with this option. Protecting livestock is more than a slight justification if you rely on livestock for your livelyhood. PageA
  • Score: -1

4:07pm Mon 24 Mar 14

PageA says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
cookie1974 wrote:
There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us.

It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.
I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this
So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?
If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject
But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument?
Still Grumpy
I promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings known
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie1974[/bold] wrote: There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us. It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.[/p][/quote]I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this[/p][/quote]So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?[/p][/quote]If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject[/p][/quote]But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument? Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]I promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings known PageA
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Mon 24 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
cookie1974 wrote:
There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us.

It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.
I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this
So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?
If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject
But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument?
Still Grumpy
I promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings known
Yet again you side step the question PageA a hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are we to believe that you have no answer to my previous question which was simply what is the difference? With exception to the social circles involved in my question.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie1974[/bold] wrote: There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us. It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.[/p][/quote]I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this[/p][/quote]So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?[/p][/quote]If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject[/p][/quote]But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument? Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]I promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings known[/p][/quote]Yet again you side step the question PageA a hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are we to believe that you have no answer to my previous question which was simply what is the difference? With exception to the social circles involved in my question. GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Mon 24 Mar 14

pognoogle says...

PageA wrote:
pognoogle wrote:
PageA wrote:
pognoogle wrote:
PageA wrote:
pognoogle wrote:
I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better.

As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering.

Fox Hunting is not acceptable.
Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter.
Of course you would try to escape, that's a natural reaction for any living thing. However, there's a difference between being chased by natural predators such as wolves, who were hunting to kill and to survive, and being chased by (armed) fatties on horses with full bellied dogs who are bred and encouraged to aggressively tear animals apart. For fun.

Like I said before, fox hunting is not acceptable.
Again, You are showing your attitude towards the people taking part in the hunt. A fox understands being chased and the time that it takes to die, if caught, is speedy. Shot from a mile away by a posh, fatty, hurray henry when you're minding your own business seems barbaric to me. Youve said nothing about whats best for the animal just that you object to fattys having fun
Page A it would seem that once again you're misreading comments and getting on your high horse (pardon the pun) for arguings sake.
By writing that animals (any animal) does not deserve to suffer unnecessarily shows what I think is best for the animal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not fully keen on the idea of shooting either, but I understand it to be a 'better' and hopefully quicker death than being ripped apart by dogs. The act of being unecessarily chased to your death by pet dogs is disgusting enough and serves no purpose other than for fun, whereas at least protecting livestock is a slight justification.
I disagree that not sharing your opinion constitutes me getting on my high horse. It's a difference of opinion. I disagree that shooting is better for the animal and would invite you to do your own research into the limitations and cruelty associated with this option. Protecting livestock is more than a slight justification if you rely on livestock for your livelyhood.
As I said earlier, my Dad is paid to shoot animals on farmland for 'pest control' purposes so I'm fully aware of the situation and potential cruelty (we've had fallings out over it because I've looked further into it).

Protecting livestock through shooting is a slight justification for killing animals that are causing 'harm'. Chasing animals to be ripped apart for someone's entertainment holds no justification at all and is certainly npt part of a foxes natural lifestyle. Hunted for food - yes, hunted for fun - no.

We're both agreeing that the idea of animals dying unecessarily is wrong, but you make such a fuss over it that you're confusing!! Just let people have their say without jumping down their throat at every opportunity! Calm down and get yourself a brew.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better. As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering. Fox Hunting is not acceptable.[/p][/quote]Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter.[/p][/quote]Of course you would try to escape, that's a natural reaction for any living thing. However, there's a difference between being chased by natural predators such as wolves, who were hunting to kill and to survive, and being chased by (armed) fatties on horses with full bellied dogs who are bred and encouraged to aggressively tear animals apart. For fun. Like I said before, fox hunting is not acceptable.[/p][/quote]Again, You are showing your attitude towards the people taking part in the hunt. A fox understands being chased and the time that it takes to die, if caught, is speedy. Shot from a mile away by a posh, fatty, hurray henry when you're minding your own business seems barbaric to me. Youve said nothing about whats best for the animal just that you object to fattys having fun[/p][/quote]Page A it would seem that once again you're misreading comments and getting on your high horse (pardon the pun) for arguings sake. By writing that animals (any animal) does not deserve to suffer unnecessarily shows what I think is best for the animal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not fully keen on the idea of shooting either, but I understand it to be a 'better' and hopefully quicker death than being ripped apart by dogs. The act of being unecessarily chased to your death by pet dogs is disgusting enough and serves no purpose other than for fun, whereas at least protecting livestock is a slight justification.[/p][/quote]I disagree that not sharing your opinion constitutes me getting on my high horse. It's a difference of opinion. I disagree that shooting is better for the animal and would invite you to do your own research into the limitations and cruelty associated with this option. Protecting livestock is more than a slight justification if you rely on livestock for your livelyhood.[/p][/quote]As I said earlier, my Dad is paid to shoot animals on farmland for 'pest control' purposes so I'm fully aware of the situation and potential cruelty (we've had fallings out over it because I've looked further into it). Protecting livestock through shooting is a slight justification for killing animals that are causing 'harm'. Chasing animals to be ripped apart for someone's entertainment holds no justification at all and is certainly npt part of a foxes natural lifestyle. Hunted for food - yes, hunted for fun - no. We're both agreeing that the idea of animals dying unecessarily is wrong, but you make such a fuss over it that you're confusing!! Just let people have their say without jumping down their throat at every opportunity! Calm down and get yourself a brew. pognoogle
  • Score: -1

5:24pm Mon 24 Mar 14

PageA says...

pognoogle wrote:
PageA wrote:
pognoogle wrote:
PageA wrote:
pognoogle wrote:
PageA wrote:
pognoogle wrote:
I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better.

As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering.

Fox Hunting is not acceptable.
Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter.
Of course you would try to escape, that's a natural reaction for any living thing. However, there's a difference between being chased by natural predators such as wolves, who were hunting to kill and to survive, and being chased by (armed) fatties on horses with full bellied dogs who are bred and encouraged to aggressively tear animals apart. For fun.

Like I said before, fox hunting is not acceptable.
Again, You are showing your attitude towards the people taking part in the hunt. A fox understands being chased and the time that it takes to die, if caught, is speedy. Shot from a mile away by a posh, fatty, hurray henry when you're minding your own business seems barbaric to me. Youve said nothing about whats best for the animal just that you object to fattys having fun
Page A it would seem that once again you're misreading comments and getting on your high horse (pardon the pun) for arguings sake.
By writing that animals (any animal) does not deserve to suffer unnecessarily shows what I think is best for the animal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not fully keen on the idea of shooting either, but I understand it to be a 'better' and hopefully quicker death than being ripped apart by dogs. The act of being unecessarily chased to your death by pet dogs is disgusting enough and serves no purpose other than for fun, whereas at least protecting livestock is a slight justification.
I disagree that not sharing your opinion constitutes me getting on my high horse. It's a difference of opinion. I disagree that shooting is better for the animal and would invite you to do your own research into the limitations and cruelty associated with this option. Protecting livestock is more than a slight justification if you rely on livestock for your livelyhood.
As I said earlier, my Dad is paid to shoot animals on farmland for 'pest control' purposes so I'm fully aware of the situation and potential cruelty (we've had fallings out over it because I've looked further into it).

Protecting livestock through shooting is a slight justification for killing animals that are causing 'harm'. Chasing animals to be ripped apart for someone's entertainment holds no justification at all and is certainly npt part of a foxes natural lifestyle. Hunted for food - yes, hunted for fun - no.

We're both agreeing that the idea of animals dying unecessarily is wrong, but you make such a fuss over it that you're confusing!! Just let people have their say without jumping down their throat at every opportunity! Calm down and get yourself a brew.
Haha! I'm sorry er...what? I think shooting is a better option..oh and by the way my dad earns money doing it! Did anyone else not see that one coming! Believe me I am completely calm, I enjoy a good debate and believe it or not I enjoy it when someone changes my opinion about a subject. It doesn't happen often because I very rarely speak without giving a subject some thought. But when it does, I'm very gracious.
[quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pognoogle[/bold] wrote: I'm against Fox Hunting as a sport. There is no reason for enforcing unnecessary pain and stress on an animal just for fun. My main issue is that an animal is being killed simply for fun, that would apply to whatever animal it was even something as 'insignificant' as a rat for example. Anything that lives and breathes should not be killed for the fun of it. We're supposed to be a civilized race, we're educated,we're informed and we know better. As for protecting livestock and the like, again I don't believe in traps or poison as they can lead to unnecessary pain and stress. Instead, farmers could hire 'pest control' and have someone 'control' (kill) their pests in a more 'humane' way i.e. one bullet through the head so it's an instant death. (I know shooting isn't humane but it's quick and efficient and has a more certain impact). My dad shoots animals on farms, he's trained, licensed and responsible. It's a necessary evil and a job. Farmers are happy and there's less suffering. Fox Hunting is not acceptable.[/p][/quote]Fox hunting is not acceptable but shooting is fine so long as it's pinpoint accurate, instant death from a kilometre awayon a moving target. Like I said at the start...if I was given the choice between instant death/ lingering death from gunshot or the chance to use my skills to escape, I'd choose the latter.[/p][/quote]Of course you would try to escape, that's a natural reaction for any living thing. However, there's a difference between being chased by natural predators such as wolves, who were hunting to kill and to survive, and being chased by (armed) fatties on horses with full bellied dogs who are bred and encouraged to aggressively tear animals apart. For fun. Like I said before, fox hunting is not acceptable.[/p][/quote]Again, You are showing your attitude towards the people taking part in the hunt. A fox understands being chased and the time that it takes to die, if caught, is speedy. Shot from a mile away by a posh, fatty, hurray henry when you're minding your own business seems barbaric to me. Youve said nothing about whats best for the animal just that you object to fattys having fun[/p][/quote]Page A it would seem that once again you're misreading comments and getting on your high horse (pardon the pun) for arguings sake. By writing that animals (any animal) does not deserve to suffer unnecessarily shows what I think is best for the animal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not fully keen on the idea of shooting either, but I understand it to be a 'better' and hopefully quicker death than being ripped apart by dogs. The act of being unecessarily chased to your death by pet dogs is disgusting enough and serves no purpose other than for fun, whereas at least protecting livestock is a slight justification.[/p][/quote]I disagree that not sharing your opinion constitutes me getting on my high horse. It's a difference of opinion. I disagree that shooting is better for the animal and would invite you to do your own research into the limitations and cruelty associated with this option. Protecting livestock is more than a slight justification if you rely on livestock for your livelyhood.[/p][/quote]As I said earlier, my Dad is paid to shoot animals on farmland for 'pest control' purposes so I'm fully aware of the situation and potential cruelty (we've had fallings out over it because I've looked further into it). Protecting livestock through shooting is a slight justification for killing animals that are causing 'harm'. Chasing animals to be ripped apart for someone's entertainment holds no justification at all and is certainly npt part of a foxes natural lifestyle. Hunted for food - yes, hunted for fun - no. We're both agreeing that the idea of animals dying unecessarily is wrong, but you make such a fuss over it that you're confusing!! Just let people have their say without jumping down their throat at every opportunity! Calm down and get yourself a brew.[/p][/quote]Haha! I'm sorry er...what? I think shooting is a better option..oh and by the way my dad earns money doing it! Did anyone else not see that one coming! Believe me I am completely calm, I enjoy a good debate and believe it or not I enjoy it when someone changes my opinion about a subject. It doesn't happen often because I very rarely speak without giving a subject some thought. But when it does, I'm very gracious. PageA
  • Score: -1

5:43pm Mon 24 Mar 14

PageA says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
cookie1974 wrote:
There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us.

It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.
I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this
So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?
If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject
But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument?
Still Grumpy
I promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings known
Yet again you side step the question PageA a hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are we to believe that you have no answer to my previous question which was simply what is the difference? With exception to the social circles involved in my question.
Sorry Pal, just cba following you off on your tangent.

Here's some poetry instead

Caught in the center of a soundless field
While hot inexplicable hours go by
What trap is this? Where were its teeth concealed?
You seem to ask.
I make a sharp reply,
Then clean my stick. I'm glad I can't explain
Just in what jaws you were to suppurate:
You may have thought things would come right again
If you could only keep quite still and wait
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie1974[/bold] wrote: There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us. It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.[/p][/quote]I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this[/p][/quote]So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?[/p][/quote]If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject[/p][/quote]But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument? Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]I promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings known[/p][/quote]Yet again you side step the question PageA a hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are we to believe that you have no answer to my previous question which was simply what is the difference? With exception to the social circles involved in my question.[/p][/quote]Sorry Pal, just cba following you off on your tangent. Here's some poetry instead Caught in the center of a soundless field While hot inexplicable hours go by What trap is this? Where were its teeth concealed? You seem to ask. I make a sharp reply, Then clean my stick. I'm glad I can't explain Just in what jaws you were to suppurate: You may have thought things would come right again If you could only keep quite still and wait PageA
  • Score: -1

5:58pm Mon 24 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
cookie1974 wrote:
There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us.

It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.
I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this
So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?
If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject
But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument?
Still Grumpy
I promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings known
Yet again you side step the question PageA a hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are we to believe that you have no answer to my previous question which was simply what is the difference? With exception to the social circles involved in my question.
Sorry Pal, just cba following you off on your tangent.

Here's some poetry instead

Caught in the center of a soundless field
While hot inexplicable hours go by
What trap is this? Where were its teeth concealed?
You seem to ask.
I make a sharp reply,
Then clean my stick. I'm glad I can't explain
Just in what jaws you were to suppurate:
You may have thought things would come right again
If you could only keep quite still and wait
"Believe me I am completely calm, I enjoy a good debate and believe it or not I enjoy it when someone changes my opinion about a subject. It doesn't happen often because I very rarely speak without giving a subject some thought. But when it does, I'm very gracious".

Clearly you do not stand by your own comments and still you avoid my question which was quite simple, answer the question PageA what is the difference? Clearly 3 times you have commented to my comments and you have no answer even after thought! So you post, poetry and nonsensical replies as you have no intelligent response or can not substantiate your original comments.
Still Grumpy
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie1974[/bold] wrote: There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us. It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.[/p][/quote]I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this[/p][/quote]So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?[/p][/quote]If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject[/p][/quote]But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument? Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]I promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings known[/p][/quote]Yet again you side step the question PageA a hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are we to believe that you have no answer to my previous question which was simply what is the difference? With exception to the social circles involved in my question.[/p][/quote]Sorry Pal, just cba following you off on your tangent. Here's some poetry instead Caught in the center of a soundless field While hot inexplicable hours go by What trap is this? Where were its teeth concealed? You seem to ask. I make a sharp reply, Then clean my stick. I'm glad I can't explain Just in what jaws you were to suppurate: You may have thought things would come right again If you could only keep quite still and wait[/p][/quote]"Believe me I am completely calm, I enjoy a good debate and believe it or not I enjoy it when someone changes my opinion about a subject. It doesn't happen often because I very rarely speak without giving a subject some thought. But when it does, I'm very gracious". Clearly you do not stand by your own comments and still you avoid my question which was quite simple, answer the question PageA what is the difference? Clearly 3 times you have commented to my comments and you have no answer even after thought! So you post, poetry and nonsensical replies as you have no intelligent response or can not substantiate your original comments. Still Grumpy GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 2

6:26pm Mon 24 Mar 14

PageA says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
cookie1974 wrote:
There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us.

It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.
I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this
So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?
If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject
But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument?
Still Grumpy
I promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings known
Yet again you side step the question PageA a hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are we to believe that you have no answer to my previous question which was simply what is the difference? With exception to the social circles involved in my question.
Sorry Pal, just cba following you off on your tangent.

Here's some poetry instead

Caught in the center of a soundless field
While hot inexplicable hours go by
What trap is this? Where were its teeth concealed?
You seem to ask.
I make a sharp reply,
Then clean my stick. I'm glad I can't explain
Just in what jaws you were to suppurate:
You may have thought things would come right again
If you could only keep quite still and wait
"Believe me I am completely calm, I enjoy a good debate and believe it or not I enjoy it when someone changes my opinion about a subject. It doesn't happen often because I very rarely speak without giving a subject some thought. But when it does, I'm very gracious".

Clearly you do not stand by your own comments and still you avoid my question which was quite simple, answer the question PageA what is the difference? Clearly 3 times you have commented to my comments and you have no answer even after thought! So you post, poetry and nonsensical replies as you have no intelligent response or can not substantiate your original comments.
Still Grumpy
Yeh, sorry Grumpy bit busy. What was it again? Something about gypsies?
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie1974[/bold] wrote: There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us. It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.[/p][/quote]I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this[/p][/quote]So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?[/p][/quote]If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject[/p][/quote]But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument? Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]I promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings known[/p][/quote]Yet again you side step the question PageA a hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are we to believe that you have no answer to my previous question which was simply what is the difference? With exception to the social circles involved in my question.[/p][/quote]Sorry Pal, just cba following you off on your tangent. Here's some poetry instead Caught in the center of a soundless field While hot inexplicable hours go by What trap is this? Where were its teeth concealed? You seem to ask. I make a sharp reply, Then clean my stick. I'm glad I can't explain Just in what jaws you were to suppurate: You may have thought things would come right again If you could only keep quite still and wait[/p][/quote]"Believe me I am completely calm, I enjoy a good debate and believe it or not I enjoy it when someone changes my opinion about a subject. It doesn't happen often because I very rarely speak without giving a subject some thought. But when it does, I'm very gracious". Clearly you do not stand by your own comments and still you avoid my question which was quite simple, answer the question PageA what is the difference? Clearly 3 times you have commented to my comments and you have no answer even after thought! So you post, poetry and nonsensical replies as you have no intelligent response or can not substantiate your original comments. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Yeh, sorry Grumpy bit busy. What was it again? Something about gypsies? PageA
  • Score: -1

7:00pm Mon 24 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
cookie1974 wrote:
There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us.

It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on thisSo what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?If it's ok, I'll stay on the subjectBut PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument?
Still GrumpyI promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings knownYet again you side step the question PageA a hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are we to believe that you have no answer to my previous question which was simply what is the difference? With exception to the social circles involved in my question.Sorry Pal, just cba following you off on your tangent.

Here's some poetry instead

Caught in the center of a soundless field
While hot inexplicable hours go by
What trap is this? Where were its teeth concealed?
You seem to ask.
I make a sharp reply,
Then clean my stick. I'm glad I can't explain
Just in what jaws you were to suppurate:
You may have thought things would come right again
If you could only keep quite still and wait"Believe me I am completely calm, I enjoy a good debate and believe it or not I enjoy it when someone changes my opinion about a subject. It doesn't happen often because I very rarely speak without giving a subject some thought. But when it does, I'm very gracious".

Clearly you do not stand by your own comments and still you avoid my question which was quite simple, answer the question PageA what is the difference? Clearly 3 times you have commented to my comments and you have no answer even after thought! So you post, poetry and nonsensical replies as you have no intelligent response or can not substantiate your original comments.
Still GrumpyYeh, sorry Grumpy bit busy. What was it again? Something about gypsies?Not really about gypsies as you well know it was more about their tradition which is simply the same subject. Stop trying to twist this as a tool against gypsies to prove your point you well know what my question was so I will ask it again.
So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?If it's ok, I'll stay on the subjectBut PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit?
And as previously stated. A hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are you repeatedly going to dodge this question or try and Google some intelligent answer?
Still Grumpy
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie1974[/bold] wrote: There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us. It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.[/p][/quote]I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this[/p][/quote]So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?[/p][/quote]If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject[/p][/quote]But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument? Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]I promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings known[/p][/quote]Yet again you side step the question PageA a hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are we to believe that you have no answer to my previous question which was simply what is the difference? With exception to the social circles involved in my question.[/p][/quote]Sorry Pal, just cba following you off on your tangent. Here's some poetry instead Caught in the center of a soundless field While hot inexplicable hours go by What trap is this? Where were its teeth concealed? You seem to ask. I make a sharp reply, Then clean my stick. I'm glad I can't explain Just in what jaws you were to suppurate: You may have thought things would come right again If you could only keep quite still and wait[/p][/quote]"Believe me I am completely calm, I enjoy a good debate and believe it or not I enjoy it when someone changes my opinion about a subject. It doesn't happen often because I very rarely speak without giving a subject some thought. But when it does, I'm very gracious". Clearly you do not stand by your own comments and still you avoid my question which was quite simple, answer the question PageA what is the difference? Clearly 3 times you have commented to my comments and you have no answer even after thought! So you post, poetry and nonsensical replies as you have no intelligent response or can not substantiate your original comments. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Yeh, sorry Grumpy bit busy. What was it again? Something about gypsies?[/p][/quote]Not really about gypsies as you well know it was more about their tradition which is simply the same subject. Stop trying to twist this as a tool against gypsies to prove your point you well know what my question was so I will ask it again. So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?[/p][/quote]If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject[/p][/quote]But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? And as previously stated. A hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are you repeatedly going to dodge this question or try and Google some intelligent answer? Still Grumpy GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 1

7:00pm Mon 24 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
cookie1974 wrote:
There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us.

It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on thisSo what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?If it's ok, I'll stay on the subjectBut PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument?
Still GrumpyI promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings knownYet again you side step the question PageA a hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are we to believe that you have no answer to my previous question which was simply what is the difference? With exception to the social circles involved in my question.Sorry Pal, just cba following you off on your tangent.

Here's some poetry instead

Caught in the center of a soundless field
While hot inexplicable hours go by
What trap is this? Where were its teeth concealed?
You seem to ask.
I make a sharp reply,
Then clean my stick. I'm glad I can't explain
Just in what jaws you were to suppurate:
You may have thought things would come right again
If you could only keep quite still and wait"Believe me I am completely calm, I enjoy a good debate and believe it or not I enjoy it when someone changes my opinion about a subject. It doesn't happen often because I very rarely speak without giving a subject some thought. But when it does, I'm very gracious".

Clearly you do not stand by your own comments and still you avoid my question which was quite simple, answer the question PageA what is the difference? Clearly 3 times you have commented to my comments and you have no answer even after thought! So you post, poetry and nonsensical replies as you have no intelligent response or can not substantiate your original comments.
Still GrumpyYeh, sorry Grumpy bit busy. What was it again? Something about gypsies?Not really about gypsies as you well know it was more about their tradition which is simply the same subject. Stop trying to twist this as a tool against gypsies to prove your point you well know what my question was so I will ask it again.
So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?If it's ok, I'll stay on the subjectBut PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit?
And as previously stated. A hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are you repeatedly going to dodge this question or try and Google some intelligent answer?
Still Grumpy
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie1974[/bold] wrote: There are a lot of comments on here about people with livestock, that is all well and good however we cannot go on killing foxes which ever way you want to do it just for our own purposes, if a fox is to be killed by us then it has to be for consumption purposes not just to suit our own sadistic past time or to make life easier for us. It just makes me mad that as a species we are determined to wipe out what has been here a lot longer than we have.[/p][/quote]I think it is for consumption purposes, just it's not the fox that we consume. I like my chickens raised with room to walk around, I dont want them piled on top of each other in cages. I appreciate that farmers need to control the number of 4 legged killing machines that can wipeout their livestock and I think that being chased and killed by other animals is a better way for the fox to die than poison or shooting or traps. Without referring to the rich people on the horses, can anyone change my opinion on this[/p][/quote]So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?[/p][/quote]If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject[/p][/quote]But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? Your previous statement above was "can anyone change my opinion on this" so do you have double standards or do you not respond to reasonable and substantiated argument? Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]I promise when the gypsy hare coursing for money pops up..as I'm sure it will any day now..I'll make my feelings known[/p][/quote]Yet again you side step the question PageA a hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are we to believe that you have no answer to my previous question which was simply what is the difference? With exception to the social circles involved in my question.[/p][/quote]Sorry Pal, just cba following you off on your tangent. Here's some poetry instead Caught in the center of a soundless field While hot inexplicable hours go by What trap is this? Where were its teeth concealed? You seem to ask. I make a sharp reply, Then clean my stick. I'm glad I can't explain Just in what jaws you were to suppurate: You may have thought things would come right again If you could only keep quite still and wait[/p][/quote]"Believe me I am completely calm, I enjoy a good debate and believe it or not I enjoy it when someone changes my opinion about a subject. It doesn't happen often because I very rarely speak without giving a subject some thought. But when it does, I'm very gracious". Clearly you do not stand by your own comments and still you avoid my question which was quite simple, answer the question PageA what is the difference? Clearly 3 times you have commented to my comments and you have no answer even after thought! So you post, poetry and nonsensical replies as you have no intelligent response or can not substantiate your original comments. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Yeh, sorry Grumpy bit busy. What was it again? Something about gypsies?[/p][/quote]Not really about gypsies as you well know it was more about their tradition which is simply the same subject. Stop trying to twist this as a tool against gypsies to prove your point you well know what my question was so I will ask it again. So what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit PageA?[/p][/quote]If it's ok, I'll stay on the subject[/p][/quote]But PageA I fail to see what the difference is a dog chasing and mutilating a fox or a dog chasing and mutilating a hare. Your argument is flawed and the subject is the same so again what are your thoughts on Gypsies hare coursing for fun and profit? And as previously stated. A hare/rabbit will do as much damage to a farmers crop than a fox will do to his live stock. So are you repeatedly going to dodge this question or try and Google some intelligent answer? Still Grumpy GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 1

7:44pm Mon 24 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

I guess PageA has been silenced yet again.
Still Grumpy
I guess PageA has been silenced yet again. Still Grumpy GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 2

8:01pm Mon 24 Mar 14

PageA says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
I guess PageA has been silenced yet again.
Still Grumpy
Sorry again good buddy, real life calls. Can you link me to the story please?many thanks
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: I guess PageA has been silenced yet again. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Sorry again good buddy, real life calls. Can you link me to the story please?many thanks PageA
  • Score: -1

7:45am Tue 25 Mar 14

PageA says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
I guess PageA has been silenced yet again.
Still Grumpy
You're back to your rude old self again I see.
It's like this....
This story is about animal welfare and comparable methods of death.
If we were considering mr fox sat at home with his family, minding his own business, never interfering with the human food chain and someone set a pack of dogs on him, then I would say that was bang out of order. But we're not talking about him...we're talking about the mr fox that is about to have his brains pushed out through his skull or left wounded to die a slow agonising death by an invisible assailant. These are the two animals that we are talking about. You and others on here are happy that the second method is being used, I'm suggesting that if you put away your stereotypes for one minute you might think that the first method, for a fox about to die, might not be as bad as you say. I have no idea what the ethnic background of the hunter has to do with any of this. If I was a rabbit I would also like to be given a head start rather than be shot or poisoned and I would prefer it to be a pack of dogs that killed me instantly rather than one lurcher that threw me around for a couple of minutes. Again, I'm talking about the animal welfare of an animal deemed fit to be killed. Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals.
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: I guess PageA has been silenced yet again. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]You're back to your rude old self again I see. It's like this.... This story is about animal welfare and comparable methods of death. If we were considering mr fox sat at home with his family, minding his own business, never interfering with the human food chain and someone set a pack of dogs on him, then I would say that was bang out of order. But we're not talking about him...we're talking about the mr fox that is about to have his brains pushed out through his skull or left wounded to die a slow agonising death by an invisible assailant. These are the two animals that we are talking about. You and others on here are happy that the second method is being used, I'm suggesting that if you put away your stereotypes for one minute you might think that the first method, for a fox about to die, might not be as bad as you say. I have no idea what the ethnic background of the hunter has to do with any of this. If I was a rabbit I would also like to be given a head start rather than be shot or poisoned and I would prefer it to be a pack of dogs that killed me instantly rather than one lurcher that threw me around for a couple of minutes. Again, I'm talking about the animal welfare of an animal deemed fit to be killed. Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals. PageA
  • Score: -1

9:50am Tue 25 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
I guess PageA has been silenced yet again.
Still Grumpy
You're back to your rude old self again I see.
It's like this....
This story is about animal welfare and comparable methods of death.
If we were considering mr fox sat at home with his family, minding his own business, never interfering with the human food chain and someone set a pack of dogs on him, then I would say that was bang out of order. But we're not talking about him...we're talking about the mr fox that is about to have his brains pushed out through his skull or left wounded to die a slow agonising death by an invisible assailant. These are the two animals that we are talking about. You and others on here are happy that the second method is being used, I'm suggesting that if you put away your stereotypes for one minute you might think that the first method, for a fox about to die, might not be as bad as you say. I have no idea what the ethnic background of the hunter has to do with any of this. If I was a rabbit I would also like to be given a head start rather than be shot or poisoned and I would prefer it to be a pack of dogs that killed me instantly rather than one lurcher that threw me around for a couple of minutes. Again, I'm talking about the animal welfare of an animal deemed fit to be killed. Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals.
PageA it seems we have crossed wires, you say above that I am happy with the latter of your killing scenario's when actually I am against the killing of Mr. Fox in the first place. There are many other wild animals that interfere in our food chain but I am hardly going to run round my veg patch ripping the heads off caterpillars either. You seem more concerned with the welfare of your free range chickens than you do the welfare of poor old Mr. Fox. If farmers have such problems with Mr. Fox then they should protect their chickens better invest in proper fencing or something I don't know.
"Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals".
Isn't that what this article is about?
Still Grumpy (and sorry if you think I was rude earlier)
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: I guess PageA has been silenced yet again. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]You're back to your rude old self again I see. It's like this.... This story is about animal welfare and comparable methods of death. If we were considering mr fox sat at home with his family, minding his own business, never interfering with the human food chain and someone set a pack of dogs on him, then I would say that was bang out of order. But we're not talking about him...we're talking about the mr fox that is about to have his brains pushed out through his skull or left wounded to die a slow agonising death by an invisible assailant. These are the two animals that we are talking about. You and others on here are happy that the second method is being used, I'm suggesting that if you put away your stereotypes for one minute you might think that the first method, for a fox about to die, might not be as bad as you say. I have no idea what the ethnic background of the hunter has to do with any of this. If I was a rabbit I would also like to be given a head start rather than be shot or poisoned and I would prefer it to be a pack of dogs that killed me instantly rather than one lurcher that threw me around for a couple of minutes. Again, I'm talking about the animal welfare of an animal deemed fit to be killed. Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals.[/p][/quote]PageA it seems we have crossed wires, you say above that I am happy with the latter of your killing scenario's when actually I am against the killing of Mr. Fox in the first place. There are many other wild animals that interfere in our food chain but I am hardly going to run round my veg patch ripping the heads off caterpillars either. You seem more concerned with the welfare of your free range chickens than you do the welfare of poor old Mr. Fox. If farmers have such problems with Mr. Fox then they should protect their chickens better invest in proper fencing or something I don't know. "Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals". Isn't that what this article is about? Still Grumpy (and sorry if you think I was rude earlier) GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: -1

10:19am Tue 25 Mar 14

PageA says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
I guess PageA has been silenced yet again.
Still Grumpy
You're back to your rude old self again I see.
It's like this....
This story is about animal welfare and comparable methods of death.
If we were considering mr fox sat at home with his family, minding his own business, never interfering with the human food chain and someone set a pack of dogs on him, then I would say that was bang out of order. But we're not talking about him...we're talking about the mr fox that is about to have his brains pushed out through his skull or left wounded to die a slow agonising death by an invisible assailant. These are the two animals that we are talking about. You and others on here are happy that the second method is being used, I'm suggesting that if you put away your stereotypes for one minute you might think that the first method, for a fox about to die, might not be as bad as you say. I have no idea what the ethnic background of the hunter has to do with any of this. If I was a rabbit I would also like to be given a head start rather than be shot or poisoned and I would prefer it to be a pack of dogs that killed me instantly rather than one lurcher that threw me around for a couple of minutes. Again, I'm talking about the animal welfare of an animal deemed fit to be killed. Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals.
PageA it seems we have crossed wires, you say above that I am happy with the latter of your killing scenario's when actually I am against the killing of Mr. Fox in the first place. There are many other wild animals that interfere in our food chain but I am hardly going to run round my veg patch ripping the heads off caterpillars either. You seem more concerned with the welfare of your free range chickens than you do the welfare of poor old Mr. Fox. If farmers have such problems with Mr. Fox then they should protect their chickens better invest in proper fencing or something I don't know.
"Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals".
Isn't that what this article is about?
Still Grumpy (and sorry if you think I was rude earlier)
With all due respect Grumpy, no it isn't what this article is about. It's about changing the law on fox hunting to allow the use of more dogs. They're not discussing the stopping of animal kills, just how it's done. Insects are killed with pesticides but that approach isn't favoured for killing foxes. I'm sorry if you feel there have been crossed wires but I feel that my point has been consitent throughout.
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: I guess PageA has been silenced yet again. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]You're back to your rude old self again I see. It's like this.... This story is about animal welfare and comparable methods of death. If we were considering mr fox sat at home with his family, minding his own business, never interfering with the human food chain and someone set a pack of dogs on him, then I would say that was bang out of order. But we're not talking about him...we're talking about the mr fox that is about to have his brains pushed out through his skull or left wounded to die a slow agonising death by an invisible assailant. These are the two animals that we are talking about. You and others on here are happy that the second method is being used, I'm suggesting that if you put away your stereotypes for one minute you might think that the first method, for a fox about to die, might not be as bad as you say. I have no idea what the ethnic background of the hunter has to do with any of this. If I was a rabbit I would also like to be given a head start rather than be shot or poisoned and I would prefer it to be a pack of dogs that killed me instantly rather than one lurcher that threw me around for a couple of minutes. Again, I'm talking about the animal welfare of an animal deemed fit to be killed. Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals.[/p][/quote]PageA it seems we have crossed wires, you say above that I am happy with the latter of your killing scenario's when actually I am against the killing of Mr. Fox in the first place. There are many other wild animals that interfere in our food chain but I am hardly going to run round my veg patch ripping the heads off caterpillars either. You seem more concerned with the welfare of your free range chickens than you do the welfare of poor old Mr. Fox. If farmers have such problems with Mr. Fox then they should protect their chickens better invest in proper fencing or something I don't know. "Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals". Isn't that what this article is about? Still Grumpy (and sorry if you think I was rude earlier)[/p][/quote]With all due respect Grumpy, no it isn't what this article is about. It's about changing the law on fox hunting to allow the use of more dogs. They're not discussing the stopping of animal kills, just how it's done. Insects are killed with pesticides but that approach isn't favoured for killing foxes. I'm sorry if you feel there have been crossed wires but I feel that my point has been consitent throughout. PageA
  • Score: -1

11:55am Tue 25 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
I guess PageA has been silenced yet again.
Still Grumpy
You're back to your rude old self again I see.
It's like this....
This story is about animal welfare and comparable methods of death.
If we were considering mr fox sat at home with his family, minding his own business, never interfering with the human food chain and someone set a pack of dogs on him, then I would say that was bang out of order. But we're not talking about him...we're talking about the mr fox that is about to have his brains pushed out through his skull or left wounded to die a slow agonising death by an invisible assailant. These are the two animals that we are talking about. You and others on here are happy that the second method is being used, I'm suggesting that if you put away your stereotypes for one minute you might think that the first method, for a fox about to die, might not be as bad as you say. I have no idea what the ethnic background of the hunter has to do with any of this. If I was a rabbit I would also like to be given a head start rather than be shot or poisoned and I would prefer it to be a pack of dogs that killed me instantly rather than one lurcher that threw me around for a couple of minutes. Again, I'm talking about the animal welfare of an animal deemed fit to be killed. Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals.
PageA it seems we have crossed wires, you say above that I am happy with the latter of your killing scenario's when actually I am against the killing of Mr. Fox in the first place. There are many other wild animals that interfere in our food chain but I am hardly going to run round my veg patch ripping the heads off caterpillars either. You seem more concerned with the welfare of your free range chickens than you do the welfare of poor old Mr. Fox. If farmers have such problems with Mr. Fox then they should protect their chickens better invest in proper fencing or something I don't know.
"Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals".
Isn't that what this article is about?
Still Grumpy (and sorry if you think I was rude earlier)
With all due respect Grumpy, no it isn't what this article is about. It's about changing the law on fox hunting to allow the use of more dogs. They're not discussing the stopping of animal kills, just how it's done. Insects are killed with pesticides but that approach isn't favoured for killing foxes. I'm sorry if you feel there have been crossed wires but I feel that my point has been consitent throughout.
Does your misses ever win an argument with you PageA?
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: I guess PageA has been silenced yet again. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]You're back to your rude old self again I see. It's like this.... This story is about animal welfare and comparable methods of death. If we were considering mr fox sat at home with his family, minding his own business, never interfering with the human food chain and someone set a pack of dogs on him, then I would say that was bang out of order. But we're not talking about him...we're talking about the mr fox that is about to have his brains pushed out through his skull or left wounded to die a slow agonising death by an invisible assailant. These are the two animals that we are talking about. You and others on here are happy that the second method is being used, I'm suggesting that if you put away your stereotypes for one minute you might think that the first method, for a fox about to die, might not be as bad as you say. I have no idea what the ethnic background of the hunter has to do with any of this. If I was a rabbit I would also like to be given a head start rather than be shot or poisoned and I would prefer it to be a pack of dogs that killed me instantly rather than one lurcher that threw me around for a couple of minutes. Again, I'm talking about the animal welfare of an animal deemed fit to be killed. Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals.[/p][/quote]PageA it seems we have crossed wires, you say above that I am happy with the latter of your killing scenario's when actually I am against the killing of Mr. Fox in the first place. There are many other wild animals that interfere in our food chain but I am hardly going to run round my veg patch ripping the heads off caterpillars either. You seem more concerned with the welfare of your free range chickens than you do the welfare of poor old Mr. Fox. If farmers have such problems with Mr. Fox then they should protect their chickens better invest in proper fencing or something I don't know. "Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals". Isn't that what this article is about? Still Grumpy (and sorry if you think I was rude earlier)[/p][/quote]With all due respect Grumpy, no it isn't what this article is about. It's about changing the law on fox hunting to allow the use of more dogs. They're not discussing the stopping of animal kills, just how it's done. Insects are killed with pesticides but that approach isn't favoured for killing foxes. I'm sorry if you feel there have been crossed wires but I feel that my point has been consitent throughout.[/p][/quote]Does your misses ever win an argument with you PageA? GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 0

7:38am Wed 26 Mar 14

PageA says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
I guess PageA has been silenced yet again.
Still Grumpy
You're back to your rude old self again I see.
It's like this....
This story is about animal welfare and comparable methods of death.
If we were considering mr fox sat at home with his family, minding his own business, never interfering with the human food chain and someone set a pack of dogs on him, then I would say that was bang out of order. But we're not talking about him...we're talking about the mr fox that is about to have his brains pushed out through his skull or left wounded to die a slow agonising death by an invisible assailant. These are the two animals that we are talking about. You and others on here are happy that the second method is being used, I'm suggesting that if you put away your stereotypes for one minute you might think that the first method, for a fox about to die, might not be as bad as you say. I have no idea what the ethnic background of the hunter has to do with any of this. If I was a rabbit I would also like to be given a head start rather than be shot or poisoned and I would prefer it to be a pack of dogs that killed me instantly rather than one lurcher that threw me around for a couple of minutes. Again, I'm talking about the animal welfare of an animal deemed fit to be killed. Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals.
PageA it seems we have crossed wires, you say above that I am happy with the latter of your killing scenario's when actually I am against the killing of Mr. Fox in the first place. There are many other wild animals that interfere in our food chain but I am hardly going to run round my veg patch ripping the heads off caterpillars either. You seem more concerned with the welfare of your free range chickens than you do the welfare of poor old Mr. Fox. If farmers have such problems with Mr. Fox then they should protect their chickens better invest in proper fencing or something I don't know.
"Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals".
Isn't that what this article is about?
Still Grumpy (and sorry if you think I was rude earlier)
With all due respect Grumpy, no it isn't what this article is about. It's about changing the law on fox hunting to allow the use of more dogs. They're not discussing the stopping of animal kills, just how it's done. Insects are killed with pesticides but that approach isn't favoured for killing foxes. I'm sorry if you feel there have been crossed wires but I feel that my point has been consitent throughout.
Does your misses ever win an argument with you PageA?
Mrs PageA and I have been together a long time. She knows better than to start a argument with me
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: I guess PageA has been silenced yet again. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]You're back to your rude old self again I see. It's like this.... This story is about animal welfare and comparable methods of death. If we were considering mr fox sat at home with his family, minding his own business, never interfering with the human food chain and someone set a pack of dogs on him, then I would say that was bang out of order. But we're not talking about him...we're talking about the mr fox that is about to have his brains pushed out through his skull or left wounded to die a slow agonising death by an invisible assailant. These are the two animals that we are talking about. You and others on here are happy that the second method is being used, I'm suggesting that if you put away your stereotypes for one minute you might think that the first method, for a fox about to die, might not be as bad as you say. I have no idea what the ethnic background of the hunter has to do with any of this. If I was a rabbit I would also like to be given a head start rather than be shot or poisoned and I would prefer it to be a pack of dogs that killed me instantly rather than one lurcher that threw me around for a couple of minutes. Again, I'm talking about the animal welfare of an animal deemed fit to be killed. Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals.[/p][/quote]PageA it seems we have crossed wires, you say above that I am happy with the latter of your killing scenario's when actually I am against the killing of Mr. Fox in the first place. There are many other wild animals that interfere in our food chain but I am hardly going to run round my veg patch ripping the heads off caterpillars either. You seem more concerned with the welfare of your free range chickens than you do the welfare of poor old Mr. Fox. If farmers have such problems with Mr. Fox then they should protect their chickens better invest in proper fencing or something I don't know. "Maybe you should start a campaign to stop the killing of wild animals". Isn't that what this article is about? Still Grumpy (and sorry if you think I was rude earlier)[/p][/quote]With all due respect Grumpy, no it isn't what this article is about. It's about changing the law on fox hunting to allow the use of more dogs. They're not discussing the stopping of animal kills, just how it's done. Insects are killed with pesticides but that approach isn't favoured for killing foxes. I'm sorry if you feel there have been crossed wires but I feel that my point has been consitent throughout.[/p][/quote]Does your misses ever win an argument with you PageA?[/p][/quote]Mrs PageA and I have been together a long time. She knows better than to start a argument with me PageA
  • Score: 0

9:35am Wed 26 Mar 14

Russiandoll59 says...

I'm sorry but i think hunting should be banned full stop. I can't believe in this day and age it's still considered acceptable to cause panic and pain to animals. Many will disagree with me but I think it's old fashioned and very cruel. And before anyone jumps on me about eating meat etc, I haven't eaten meat,fish or worn leather for over 25 years either. I grew up in the country where it's considered the norm but this still didn't sway me into thinking its an acceptable thing to do!!
I'm sorry but i think hunting should be banned full stop. I can't believe in this day and age it's still considered acceptable to cause panic and pain to animals. Many will disagree with me but I think it's old fashioned and very cruel. And before anyone jumps on me about eating meat etc, I haven't eaten meat,fish or worn leather for over 25 years either. I grew up in the country where it's considered the norm but this still didn't sway me into thinking its an acceptable thing to do!! Russiandoll59
  • Score: 0

9:55am Wed 26 Mar 14

PageA says...

Russiandoll59 wrote:
I'm sorry but i think hunting should be banned full stop. I can't believe in this day and age it's still considered acceptable to cause panic and pain to animals. Many will disagree with me but I think it's old fashioned and very cruel. And before anyone jumps on me about eating meat etc, I haven't eaten meat,fish or worn leather for over 25 years either. I grew up in the country where it's considered the norm but this still didn't sway me into thinking its an acceptable thing to do!!
Ok, do you not feel that the numbers of foxes in the countryside needs to be controlled? What would be your preferred method of pest control?
[quote][p][bold]Russiandoll59[/bold] wrote: I'm sorry but i think hunting should be banned full stop. I can't believe in this day and age it's still considered acceptable to cause panic and pain to animals. Many will disagree with me but I think it's old fashioned and very cruel. And before anyone jumps on me about eating meat etc, I haven't eaten meat,fish or worn leather for over 25 years either. I grew up in the country where it's considered the norm but this still didn't sway me into thinking its an acceptable thing to do!![/p][/quote]Ok, do you not feel that the numbers of foxes in the countryside needs to be controlled? What would be your preferred method of pest control? PageA
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree