http://www.march-info.org/march2/index.html. It'd be great if 'city' folk who appreciate the countryside gave their support. Can't be there myself but will be in mind & spirit and displaying the car sticker for support!
Hmmmm..... I think the sooner they ban hunting the better.
I was born and bred in the country and never saw a single fox. Saw plenty of hunts though. I'm sure they're great fun, but morally can't find any justification for them at all. If foxes need to be controlled, shoot them (like they do the dogs that cause a lot of the problems that foxes get blamed for.)
The trouble is JoJo the hunt 'em, kill'em mob try to justify ripping a small creature apart by saying it's much kinder than shooting them....a bullet apparently can leave them in agony if it just hit's them but does not kill! so how comes all these hunters can achieve bringing down a bird on the wing, but not a large target like a fox?
p.s. I have a fox colony in my garden and the neighbourhood cats are still intect, even as kittens.....
Alot of people do not understand life in the countryside nor do they care to educate themselves either. Most MP's should not debate on an issue that most of them have no idea what they are talking about and saying they might be respresenting their constituency - how can can an inner city constituency know the first thing about the countryside and its way of life?
I think this argument is used by people who know that ethically there is no justification for fox-hunting. The pest-control argument is a load of rubbish, because there are alternative ways of controlling foxes that do not require the number of people and dogs that hunting involves. To claim that hunting is about anything other than fun is disingenuous. But those of us who believe this can be dismissed with the line "You don't understand the country." The country's not that difficult to understand.
And I'm sure most MPs have no direct experience of, for example, paedophilia, yet they are still able to debate this issue. And anyway, when has knowing what you're talking about been a pre-requisite for governmental debate?
If something is cruel then it should be stopped. I agree with you Jo Jo.
But, is hunting cruel? The Government's own commissioned study a couple of years ago, under Lord Burns, concluded that hunting is not cruel. Yes, it 'compromises the welfare' of the hunted animal - but death would, wouldn't it. But cruelty was not a conclusion of the report.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary on the cruelty issue, I shall continue to hunt.
So, if something is not cruel, why should it be stopped? There are very strong arguments for a Government to interfere in our everyday lives as little as possible. I don't enjoy football; football crowds can be violent and unpleasant, try getting a train with a bunch of beered up supporters; football crowds can even kill (Hillsborough?), but I wouldn't for a moment suggest that football should be banned. The same goes for hunting, homosexuality and all those other strange minority interests. Let the rest of the world get on with doing what they want so long as it isn't cruel, and it doesn't affect the rest of the population (much - just think of those football crowds).
If you respect the freedom of choice to do what you want, and reject the vindictive control-freak government we have, then please come and march with us this Sunday - it's very handy for SE1.
A pellet from a shotgun cartridge can bring down a bird (pheasant, grouse, partridge etc), and will either kill it, or will leave it wounded and incapacitated. The shooter's dog will recover the bird which will then be killed by having its neck broken, if it is still alive. Given the size of a bird, this is easy. It is not 'done' on the shooting field not to recover a bird which has been shot. You can then be certain that it is dead.
A single pellet from a shotgun cartridge would not do much to an elephant (would you expect a big target like that to be killed instantly from a shotgun pellet?). Similarly, it will only mildly wound a fox - a rifle bullet also is likely only to wound a fox.
Unlike a bird, it is likely that the lightly wounded fox will run off, and will then die a slow death from gangrene and blood poisoning. He is likely to starve too. Fox hunting is either death or escape - a fox does not escape the hounds once caught, and death is virtually instantaneous.
Just to expand on the 'virtually' instantaneous briefly, it's virtually impossible to kill a large animal instantly. (You can step on a greenfly, and that will die instantly.) Even in an abbatoire where death is an art form, it takes quite some time for a sheep/pig/cow to die. It's brains are blown apart, but although it will be in shock and not 'suffering' it will not be dead for quite some time.
Finally, Jan, 'ripping apart'. When a fox is ripped apart, it is dead. Just like the piece of stewing steak which you rip apart when you chop it up to put it into a casserole. You may be squeamish at the sight of an animal's blood, but ripping a dead animal apart is not cruel. I can understand you may not like the spectacle, but you don't have to watch it.