Regardless
I have no respect for your position, simply because I struggle to find common ground with people who advocate deliberately (and quite avoidably) inflicting pain.

If you're not bloodthirsty, why support the hunting of foxes rather than, say, drag hunting? The suggestion that it represents a valid means of population control is sub-cretinous, and the 'oh, it supports local jobs, blah blah blah' argument could just as easily apply to various other distateful (and illegal) means of potential employment.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 28 May 2010, 14:11, 1 reply)

Why?
"I struggle to find common ground with people who advocate deliberately (and quite avoidably) inflicting pain"

So you're a teepee dwelling vegan then? You don't actually *need* to eat meat/live in a house/play golf/drive a car or... well... almost anything. But many of the things that you do/own/eat will have inflicted pain on something directly or indirectly.

"The suggestion that it represents a valid means of population control is sub-cretinous"

That's not an argument. Why is it sub cretinous?
(flimflam_machine, Fri 28 May 2010, 14:32, closed)

Are you drawing parallels between eating meat and hunting foxes?
It's generally accepted that killing for the purposes of consumption is somewhat more understandable than killing for the sheer enjoyment of it. Furthermore, the emphasis is increasingly on humane husbandry and ethical slaughter, rather than having a load of hounds chase a wild animal for a few miles before tearing its guts out. As you're asking about me personally - I always buy meat as ethically as I can, preferably from local farms, who use reputable slaughterhouses. I never buy 'value' crap, or any meat from places with dodgy welfare laws.

Oh, and the argument that hunting is a valid means of population control is sub-cretinous for one simple reason; it's a complete load of made-up, patently-false bullshit, which stands up to no logical scrutiny whatsoever. Lamping is a valid means of population control; gangs of men+horses+dogs charging around the countryside mob-handed in order to eliminate one fox at a time is really quite pathetically uneconomical, in terms of effort expended vs foxes killed.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 28 May 2010, 15:11, closed)

No.
I'm not saying that they're equivalent. I'm saying that many of the things that we 'enjoy' (food, water, shelter etc.) result in (either in their setting up or their ongoing operation) the suffering of a number of animals e.g. your house may have been built on a badger sett. The fact that you weren't actually there when the suffering occurred is probably not of much comfort to the animal.

And yes, I think that killing animals for food is more acceptable. More people should try it to see what it's actually like.

"gangs of men+horses+dogs charging around the countryside mob-handed in order to eliminate one fox at a time is really quite pathetically uneconomical, in terms of effort expended vs foxes killed."

I agree with every word of this, but I don't understand why it's an argument against fox hunting. The end result of hunting is a dead fox. If you accept that foxes are vermin and need to be culled then hunting still contributes to population control. The fact that it's inefficient and uneconomical means fuck all because the people who do it do so entirely at their own expense (money, time, effort etc.), AFAIK it's not subsidised. If I want to spend my free time going round my neighbourhood picking up litter by hand, would you try to stop me because it's more efficient to do it with a street-sweeping lorry?
(flimflam_machine, Fri 28 May 2010, 15:23, closed)

Oh, its lack of efficiency isn't my reason for detesting fox-hunting
as I've made abundantly clear - I mention this purely to dispatch the 'population control' argument put forth by the pro-hunt lobby.

My argument is with the pain caused, and the intent of the participants. I'm not going to indulge your tortured comparison to my house possibly being built on a badger sett, as it's a ridiculous straw-man argument. Though things have died to sustain my life, I take no pleasure in it - and the act of the slaying was not my primary motivation.

I dislike the fact that the foxes have to suffer a needlessly painful and gruesome death. And, alongside this, I feel utter contempt for those who observe this spectacle, and find it an enjoyable experience. Whether or not it matters to the animal if its death was an unfortunate consequence or the intended effect - it matters to me. The intent behind the action matters, to me.

If you like riding horses and running with dogs, go drag hunting. It's not a difficult concept to master. Ripping animals apart for fun should have been consigned to history; the fact fox hunting didn't go with bear-baiting, dog-fighting, cock-fighting and so forth was entirely due to the social position of its adherents, not any inherent merit.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 28 May 2010, 15:40, closed)

Well argued sir!
As I said, I think we're probably better off without it. When you take all the arguments together, they are pretty discomforting, but I'm not 100% convinced that they hang together well enough to pass a law against it.

Also you could argue that it differs from bear-baiting, dog-fighting, cock-fighting and so forth in that (1) it does kill vermin (albeit inefficiently) and so serve some purpose other than entertainment and (2) it involves hunting animals in their wild habitat rather than capturing and/or training an animal specifically to fight for the purposes of entertainment.

Edit: 'Whether or not it matters to the animal if its death was an unfortunate consequence or the intended effect - it matters to me. The intent behind the action matters, to me.'

I find this quite odd. As Ring of Fire said, presumably the aim is a reduction in cruelty. It does sound like what you dislike is not the suffering, but that there are other people out there who think differently.
(flimflam_machine, Fri 28 May 2010, 16:00, closed)

As I mentioned
I dislike both. I have no wish to see an animal die in pain, and question the morality of those who gain pleasure from such. The fact that I dislike the intent of the 'hunters' in no way detracts from my dislike of the unpleasantly-brutal killing of the fox. It's not a dichotomy, it's all part of a whole; if I hate to see an animal suffer, I'm obviously going to have certain conceptual difficulties with those for whom it is a matter of enjoyment.

As to your thoughts on the ban, below - although the legality (or lack thereof) was never really a part of my point - I don't think you need any stronger grounds for a change in law other than a change in what the majority of people deem to be acceptable behaviour within the society they jointly form. There is no transcendental 'right' or 'wrong' against which we can measure our actions; it's all subjective, and decided by common concensus. The strength of feeling on this debate gradually swung towards 'wrong' - and it was consequently banned.

I don't really miss it.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 28 May 2010, 17:09, closed)

Brilliantly argued

( @><|= w0nu!) or cunt to my friends, Tue 1 Jun 2010, 23:17, closed)

but picking litter
is not going to result in the death of an animal. I have no problem with them being killed humanely as they are vermin and need to be controlled.
So come on be honest it's because you get to see a fox ripped to bits (or any other animal like pet cats that get in the way) and you like dressing up.
(nimrodihnio making gravy for one., Fri 28 May 2010, 15:43, closed)

Read my post below:
I said "I don't go fox hunting, I never have, and I don't really want it reintroduced."

I think that on balance I'm happier with a ban in place, but the way it came about made me feel uncomfortable. I don't think that any of the arguments against fox hunting are totally conclusive:

Cruel: maybe, but battery farming affects more animals.
Inefficient: yes, but so what, see above.
Unnecessary: so are golf, high heels, eating meat, Pokemon and Jedward.

If you want to pass a law that denies somebody a right that they currently have you'd better be pretty fucking sure that you're doing the right thing otherwise we risk turning into a horribly illiberal society. Given (what I see as) the holes in the argument against hunting and that most of the population don't really care (and certainly don't demonstrate a particular vehemence for animal rights), I can only conclude that it was done to get one over on the toffs, which is pathetic, illiberal and incorrect.
(flimflam_machine, Fri 28 May 2010, 15:47, closed)

Sadly,
I think that the way the ban was introduced does make it seem that the purpose was to get at the Hoo-rays, regardless of all the Countryside Alliance protests about the "ordinary" working-class hunting folk, and even if it was introduced for all the right reasons (ie. to consign hunting with packs of dogs to history along with bear-baiting, cock-fighting etc etc in the interests of animal welfare and progressive civilised behaviour).

The fact that there are holes in the ban wide enough to drive a truck through, let alone a pack of hounds following quarry flushed out by a bird of prey, is the worst thing about the whole business. Had the ban been thought out properly, all the loopholes would be closed, it really would have been the end of the line for the Hunts, and by this time down the line, most of them would be quaint memories of a bygone age.

Instead, the Hunts have been treading water, trying to stay afloat till the Labour Govt croaked, their mates got back into power, and the ban lifted. As with any knee-jerk law introduced with undue haste by those who apparently used it to get one over on people they don't like, rather than to benefit society, it will never be watertight enough to see the Hunts dissolved permanently. I doubt David Cameron and Oddbod Jnr Clegg will have it high on their priority lists to revise it either, so it will continue to fester.

If the issues for banning were kept to basics, ie. the way that a fox, a useless, inedible, creature is killed after a protracted chase FOR PLEASURE, then that should be enough, a ban is absolutely justified and anyone associated would surely hang their head in shame.

Instead, the Countryside Alliance cunningly turned it into a "Town vs Countryside" issue, and that's why most Britons haven't really got an opinion on it, because most of us don't live in the Inner City nor on a country estate where we work for the Squire, we're sort of in the middle of it all. If anything, people dream of the rural idyll, the country cottage they will one day buy in which to enjoy the peace and quiet, so would be reluctant to be seen as destroying "traditional" country pursuits. The fact that this idyll is fantasy anyway is neither here nor there, but surely there's no place for pointless barbarism like foxhunting in the UK today?

I strongly believe that a large section of the anti-ban protesters are people who actually DON'T support foxhunting, but have been convinced, by the CA, that the ban is part of a concerted campaign by the evil townie to tarmac the Green Belt, put a disabled access ramp in every pleasant green field, turn cricket clubhouses into Multicultural Drop-in Centres or Mosques, basically change the British countryside to fit in with a New Labour dream, where "British traditions" are to be looked back at with shame. I must say cunts like Blair,Brown,Harman etc and their "diverse" quangoes did a pretty good job of making that seem like a credible theory.

Oh, and yes, battery farmed animals suffer in greater numbers, but not to provide anyone with amusement.
(Rsoles, Fri 28 May 2010, 17:36, closed)

Maybe
I was going to leave this, because I think most points have been made, but I'm not sure why you think that 'anyone associated [with hunting] would surely hang their head in shame' just because it got banned. I'm sure hunters knew what was happening in a hunt, that wouldn't change just because it was illegal and neither would the morality of it. If they didn't care before the ban, they wouldn't care after.

'battery farmed animals suffer in greater numbers, but not to provide anyone with amusement.'

No, just to provide them with terrible quality meat that they don't actually need. Although public opinion probably has gradually swung against hunting I suspect that the majority of people still don't really care and that the swing is due more to a reduction in deference to the upper class rather than a sudden surge in animal rights activism (as evidenced by our appalling treatment of animals for needless cheap food).
(flimflam_machine, Tue 1 Jun 2010, 15:14, closed)