Jump to content

Tally Ho - Oh Non ! Not in France, what a Quirck...


Recommended Posts

[quote user="Quillan"]

I think it's interesting that after the aniversary of the ban in the UK no

arrests have been made and they just carry on business as normal so to my mind

it was all a waste of time and energy debating it.

[/quote]

 

I must confess that I have recently become a bit cynical

about policing in the UK (see the Cartoons thread where police allow protests

advocating horrible violence against people to continue without interruption

whilst at the same time are arresting two individuals for handing out leaflets

which break no laws).  There have been

many reports (with evidence) to the police about people breaking the law which

have “been dismissed”.  The other week

on BBC South West news they were reporting about video evidence submitted to

the police showing the law being broken. 

The showed the evidence to a legal expert who said that whilst it is a

complex law, there was absolutely no question that it showed at least one law

being broken.  Those who submitted the

evidence had apparently been told by the police that “they were not going to

pursue the case” – despite the adequate evidence.

 

[quote user="Quillan"]

I see somebody said the ban was introduced because that was what everyone

wanted so it was therefore democratically put in place. I think that is a bit nieve,

if you went round Labour voters and asked them at election time (the one for

the partimentry session that imposed the ban) and asked them to give three

reasons why they were voting Labour I doupt very much if many would have said

it's because of stopping hunting. Sure there would have been some but I would

wager very small percentage. So to go round saying everyone wanted it

banned is not really true. As I have said before I don't really care but I

don't like the implication that there were more people in the UK who voted

labour because they would ban fox hunting. There are far more important issues

on which to elect a government.

[/quote]

 

The same is probably true about most things in the Labour

party manifesto.  Although I did not

make the comment in one respect it must be true as Labour was elected with it

as part of their manifesto.  I think one

of the limiting aspects of British democracy is that each person has only a

single vote every 5 years and that has to cover everything.  At each election it is true that “the people

have spoken”, but impossible to say what they have said.  Whilst for some people there will be one or

two major issues that will determine how they vote, for many it is the general

“feel” or a party, its general outlook. 

Thus for many the hunting ban represented a party that considered animal

welfare and not the single issue on which to select who to vote for.  There will always be many issues at an

election.  A bit off track but I often

think it’s a shame that there are not more referendums in the UK.  Technology is available to make them easy

and cheap.  If there were more, they

would be much cheaper, etc. – but I don’t think that would suit the power

crazed leaders (in all parties) we seem to have these days.

Ian

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think the hunting fraternity did themselves no favors by pretending that they hunted to control the numbers of foxes, a pest. Which is untrue or two counts, hunting does not control their numbers effectively (because if it did,during the foot and mouth ban we would have been over run, we were not) and foxes are rarely a pest, in fact studies have shown that many farmers welcome them as they control small mammals that do harm to crops etc.

Viva, you are assuming the fox has the same range of emotions as a human, anti hunting though I am, thats a pretty big assumption! (I'm sure Dick knows the bigger word for it, but could I spell it ? [*-)])

As for politics, while the fox hunting bill may not have encouraged many voters to support Labour,(Although it did the OH) if the Conservatives decide that bringing back hunting will be part of their manifesto, they will never get my vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Viva, you are assuming the fox has the same range of emotions as a human, anti hunting though I am, thats a pretty big assumption! (I'm sure Dick knows the bigger word for it, but could I spell it ? [*-)])

[/quote]

No I don't think any animal has human emotions, but from the snarling and cowering of the fox to its eventually jumping off a ledge into some water to flee, it seemed pretty terrified to me. [:(]

I think the point I was trying to make was that if a fox needs to be culled, a clean shot to the head ( if possible) is in my opinion a far more humane way of doing things .

I thought animals do have fear, wasn't there something about how animals in an abattoir release certain chemicals that can affect the meat? seem to remember something about this on River Cottage with Hugh FW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving animals human emotions is called anthropomorphism. Dick didn't use the correct word in a post last year but had probably learned it now.

Pigs release chemicals when in fear that taint the flesh.

I have seen a lamb have its throat slit at a muslim baptism ceremony and as a non believer I was allowed to watch as in my youthful stupidity I and a friend had supplied the sheep.

The holy man dressed in white robes made the first cut, then with the knife still in situ another took over and hacked the entire head off.

The lambs eyes stopped moving after about 20 seconds but it took about a further 2 minutes for the lambs wind pipe to stop shooting in and out of its neck as it gasped noisly for breathe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natures Bad Guy - I don't think so.

For what it's worth as this thread seems to have drifted all over the place, my own considered view is that the "requirement" to hunt or cull foxes is a myth. I think many of the people who participate really do believe in it, but without any understanding of how fox populations regulate and what the actual diet of rural foxes is. I was raised in the countryside in a region that had no fox hunting but plenty of livestock including poultry, no one had any problems, but this was in the days when people had a dog or two that lived outside and did it's job. Foxes are not brave and generally seek a quiet life, they never attack anything that may put up a fight, they are not very strong and often suffer with ill health rarely living more than three or four years in the wild, much less than one would normally expect for an animal of its size.

What we actually do by hunting or culling foxes is to disrupt or remove a creature that does a pretty good job of removing dead or sick animals which is of great benefit to the environment as a whole. There is nothing that a fox does that we as humans can't protect against.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well said Chris.  Once back in the Perche a neighbour brought us a tiny injured baby fox he had found.  We knew of a girl who lived with her mother in l'Orne and already had two foxes she had rescued.  She took the baby one and we we went round to her house and saw the foxes in the house and garden with the dogs and cats, she also had an owl perched on a beam outside the house.  If I come across the photos, I'll post them.

http://www.cieh.org/pubs/pdf/Living%20with%20Urban%20Foxes%20booklet%20-%20Oct%2004.pdf#search='living%20with%20foxes'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote

user="chris pp"]

… my own considered view is that the "requirement" to hunt or cull

foxes is a myth. I think many of the people who participate really do believe

in it, but without any understanding of how fox populations regulate

[/quote]

 

A couple of years ago I read (in the UK) that UK fox

populations are actually on the decline – including in areas where there is no

hunting.

In the village I used to live in in the UK they used to

import captive bread foxes as there were not enough wild ones for the local

hunt (they even had artificial sets for them, etc.  It makes a bit of a mockery of the “need to control vermin”

argument when you have a company 25 miles away breeding them so you can release

them to hunt down as vermin !!!

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weedon - I think they go more for newborn lambs. We have friends here

with a sheep farm and he once showed us some headless newborn lambs

which the fox had left behind. If a ewe has more than one lamb she

can't protect them all. Also we have twice seen, in broad daylight, a

fox grabbing a duck by the neck and running off with it. We saved

one,yelling chasing etc but it still has a sort of bend in the neck

where it was broken. These things are more likely to happen when the

fox has its own young to feed, but the headless lambs I don't

understand. Pat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Pat, but I don't buy all this about headless lambs and a fox being the cause. If a fox has a dead creature; anything larger than a vole,  it takes it back to its set to eat in peace and relative safety, the area around the entrance is quite often littered with bits of fur and feathers. If there were headless lambs left in a field or open space the most likely perpetrator was a stone marten or pine marten. These are exactly the sorts of myths and stories about foxes that go around with no evidential foundation. On the other hand I have no trouble believing that a fox would grab a duck if easily available, or ground nesting birds and their eggs or young.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foxes do sometimes leave behind things they kill and come back for them later.

  A few years ago a large pig breeding company was having lots of trouble with its outdoor herds large numbers of piglets were dissappearing without a trace thieves were suspected, so the company hired a security firm to guard the farms. They soon discovered that it was foxes taking the piglets and so lost their job to a pest control firm.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth as this thread seems to have drifted all over the place, my own considered view is that the "requirement" to hunt or cull foxes is a myth.

 

   That may or may not be true but the fox population tends to be healthier in areas where hunting takes place due to the fact the stronger cleaver foxes out smart the hounds and get away the old, lame and infirm get killed without having to suffer a long drawn out death over several days or weeks, no other form of control can sort the weak from the strong in this way.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in France! Whether that is the case or not in the UK you would need to provide evidence. In France the methods used which include digging out of the cubs could not in any circumstances create the situation that you refer to.

If you think that we should go around killing anything that looks as though it may be a bit old, lame (lame?) or infirm for the greater benefit of wildlife, where would you suggest that we draw the line, sparrows.

Come on, get serious

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dog"]I wonder about our PC society where racism is outlawed and yet speciesism is condoned.[/quote]

Good grief, long word and all BUT they are only animals at the end of the day. It's like those that want to stop experiments on animals to cure diseases in humans like cancer and alike. If they got cancer that would kill them would they refuse a drug that would make them live just because it was developed in animals, I don’t think so.

I know somebody will say about cosmetics so I will get in quick that I totally agree with any ban on testing cosmetics on animals, test them on women, they wear them and if they don’t like that idea then don’t buy them then the companies will go out of business. Think of all the money it will save us men.

This all started because of a guy wanting to do fox hunting in France and to rip people off from the UK to do it.. I don’t want it and neither do a lot of others here. I rather suspect that many object not so much because it’s fox hunting but more along the lines of it being a quintessentially (knew I could get a long word in somewhere) English sport, we live in France and don’t like other English people who try to impose English activities on us (and the French) here, that’s why many of us live here.

To be honest I don’t give a toss about the hunting ban in the UK but there is a law so the police must make sure it’s kept to and that by not doing so again help create the myth of class i.e. there is one law for the rich and one for the poor. But don’t you all think really it’s about time we all moved on from this stupid subject and got to grips with things like health, education, lack of water in SW England, the price of petrol, fat people (I refer to the increasing amount of obese people now being reported), are the Iranians building nuclear bombs really, should we (English troops) still be in Iraq and Afghanistan etc, etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief, long word and all BUT they are only animals at the end of the day. It's like those that want to stop experiments on animals to cure diseases in humans like cancer and alike. If they got cancer that would kill them would they refuse a drug that would make them live just because it was developed in animals, I don’t think so.

Don't forget humans are animals.

There are lots of cases where people have refused drugs that have been tested on animals.

How do you think we can help solve big problems if we cannot even get the small things right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gist of part of this thread seems to suggest that foxes are only considered vermin in the UK - but my understanding when we met with the president of the huntng federation to talk about preventing hunting on our land is that they are considered vermin in France (or at least in the Dordogne) too.  They agreed to make our land a hunting reserve and post 'chasse interdite' signs every 50 metres - but made it clear that if they were hunting dangerous vermin then they would still venture onto the land.  Foxes and coypu were specifically mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I don’t give a toss about the hunting ban in the UK but there is a law so the police must make sure it’s kept to and that by not doing so again help create the myth of class i.e. there is one law for the rich and one for the poor. But don’t you all think really it’s about time we all moved on from this stupid subject and got to grips with things like health, education, lack of water in SW England, the price of petrol, fat people (I refer to the increasing amount of obese people now being reported), are the Iranians building nuclear bombs really, should we (English troops) still be in Iraq and Afghanistan etc, etc.

      ...............................................................................................................................................

Quillan...all of the above topics you mentioned could be fitted into other more suitable categories on this forum, but I assume others discussed it here because it is the place for wildlife etc.and to go off topic would incurr the wrath of the off topic monitors.

Like you I don't give a toss whether there is a hunting ban or not but it doesn't hurt to discuss it and other matters concerning beasts with sweet faces in this section.....by the way I see Anthea Turner is trying to get back on TV!!!!

weedon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...