goose Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 re: LACS/Hunt Sabs. I'm sure you're right of course that the LACS wouldn't actually pay sabs themselves to go out or condone the violence because the LACS are a registered organisation with a central head office that could be prosecuted. However, the same could be said of Sinn Fein and the IRA but unless there's 2 Martin McGuiness' then the affiliation is quite clear!I wonder how many people who support the LACS have actually been to a fox hunt to observe what happens for themselves rather than watching one or other sides (clearly edited) propaganda videos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Don't forget that the League was founded many years ago, their aim has always been the to get the law changed by the proper route of legislation. At one time the sabateurs were almost as bigger foe as the hunters, however from what I have read I think latterly they 'co operated' together as they fought for a common cause. The fact is that the majority of people in the UK wanted to ban hunting for a long time and it was the tenacity of the LACS that saw it through.If you read the article by Richard Ryder above you will see that many of the Leagues members are farmers, land owners and country people, so yes, quite a lot of them have witnessed the hounds pulling a fox apart before its dead (and please don't even think about the old argument that the lead hound breaks the foxes neck - its rubbish !) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris pp Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 OK, I am a bit confused (yeah, whats new). All the items on this thread seem to sugest that the Mayor of Pau said NON, but as I undersatnd the law the Mayor has no say in such matters, perhaps the Prefecture but even this is unlikely. What would seem more likely is that the Federation pour la Chase or its affiliated associations have refused membership to this bloke and as they (normally) own the rights for the areas that they are registered in - end of story! No membership - no hunting! I would have thought that this could make an interesting case if pursued. While I am posting I may as well state that I think Fox hunting is at best a waste of time, often cruel, possibly more so the way the French practice it which usually involves digging out including the cubs, this can take several hours. Badgers are treated in exactly the same manner and this can be outside of the hunting season by Prefectorial arret.We have taken our land out of the "hunt" and if anyone wants to do the same I am quite happy to talk to them about how to do it - E-mail me with a phone number and I will call you.I still disagree with the route taken in the UK it seems to be leading to an even more crazy situation, the law is clearly being broken and all sorts of undesireable alternatives are gaining popularity, using large birds of prey for example.Cheers, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
le bouffon Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 The fact is that you or I do not know that the majority wanted it banned,that is a fact,the only way that would be true if every one in the UK was asked,the majority of parliament did that is a fact,if you want to go on about if they represent the majority that is another subject. The lead hound will kill the fox outright if not there will be many more of them there in seconds,it will be dead then,the fact that the fox is ripped up when dead it means nothing it is deadWhy not aim at live annimals having their throats cut and bleeding to death,that is a lot slower death than the fox and the anti-hunt do not like old foxy dying a slow death,that for a fact must be more cruel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 [quote user="le bouffon"]The fact is that you or I do not know that the majority wanted it banned,that is a fact,the only way that would be true if every one in the UK was asked,the majority of parliament did that is a fact,if you want to go on about if they represent the majority that is another subject. The lead hound will kill the fox outright if not there will be many more of them there in seconds,it will be dead then,the fact that the fox is ripped up when dead it means nothing it is deadWhy not aim at live annimals having their throats cut and bleeding to death,that is a lot slower death than the fox and the anti-hunt do not like old foxy dying a slow death,that for a fact must be more cruel.[/quote]Le bouffon - I did quite a bit of reading about this when the bill was due to go through parliament, and there is respected research about how hounds kill foxes - I'm not making it up !There have also been surveys to say what the British people think about hunting..........Comparing levels of cruelty isn't really a valid argument.Chris - I agree, I think the law as it stands is rather crude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Was it Oscar Wilde that described hunting as the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable?Sounds about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patmobile Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 If it's legal and they can get the agreement of local landowners, then let's for goodness sake leave them to get on with it.I dislike the idea of hunting foxes with hounds, whether in fancydress, on horseback, or otherwise, but this vehement campaign againstpeople doing their own thing, while harming no other person, is a typically British thing that I hoped not to see in France.Let's just hope that if the gendarmes ever see masked saboteursattacking people in fancy dress on horses engaged in a perfectly legalpursuit, they will have no hesitation in banging up the realtroublemakers - I mean the sabs, of course.By the way, I've lived in the French countryside for 5 years and neverseen a fox, alive or dead. In Britain you see them everywhere,including dead on the roadside, and suburban back gardens. Isuppose the farmers have shot most of them over here, but is itpossible that the existence of foxes in such numbers in Britain is aresult of a couple of hundred years of careful conservation and cullingby the hunts? Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
le bouffon Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Ok what takes longer to die a wounded fox which as been shot but fatally or a fox that as been at the sharp end of a pack of hounds? Surveys ask normally only a thousand people,far from being the majority.Really fail to see why there is a differance when a sheep is strung up and has it`s throat cut and left to bleed to death and an anti-fox hunter banging on how creul it is to hunt a fox,unless one adds the class issue,then it is nothing to do with foxes.To add a little in the way of hunting with dogs I think hunting deer/stags with dogs is barbaric as the deers/stags suffer real pain(not that foxes do not,but it is over quicker) and for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 [quote user="Patmobile"]If it's legal and they can get the agreement of local landowners, then let's for goodness sake leave them to get on with it.I dislike the idea of hunting foxes with hounds, whether in fancy dress, on horseback, or otherwise, but this vehement campaign against people doing their own thing, while harming no other person, is a typically British thing that I hoped not to see in France.Let's just hope that if the gendarmes ever see masked saboteurs attacking people in fancy dress on horses engaged in a perfectly legal pursuit, they will have no hesitation in banging up the real troublemakers - I mean the sabs, of course.By the way, I've lived in the French countryside for 5 years and never seen a fox, alive or dead. In Britain you see them everywhere, including dead on the roadside, and suburban back gardens. I suppose the farmers have shot most of them over here, but is it possible that the existence of foxes in such numbers in Britain is a result of a couple of hundred years of careful conservation and culling by the hunts? Patrick[/quote]The problem is that other people are harmed - land is trampled, crops destroyed, pets sometimes killed and other livestock jeopardized. For instance one of the members of the LACS group I used to belong to lived deep in the woods in a little cottage. They kept a few animals chickens, bantams and goats....the hunt went over their land and the nanny goat 'dropped her kid' meaning that they had no milk, lost the kid and nearly the goat as well. If the hunt had input into the numbers of foxes in the Uk those numbers would have altered when we had foot and mouth here - they didn't.Cruelty to the fox is only one issue involved Bouffon, the guy who wrote the piece I previously posted (you might find it informative) coined the term 'speciesism'. Perhaps he had you in mind !Oscar Wilde got it right ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christine Animal Posted December 8, 2005 Author Share Posted December 8, 2005 Patrick,The thread is about a "vehement campaign", as you call it, by the French against the British wanting to come to foxhunt here. Surely that is their right and I will gladly join them.All people have been asked to do is write to the Maire and there has been no mention of masked saboteurs. Someone who is capable of spraying bleach in a horse's face (in England) should not belong to anything.Let's not get everything mixed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
le bouffon Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 The example you quote is a prime case for compensation,if they owned the land, if they were tennants then the hunt had right of way(if the landlord was involved)I do not need to read someone elses biased opinions to how to think,why do you not address the slow killing of sheep goats etc by silting of the throat and bleeding to death,which is much more creul and happens every day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christine Animal Posted December 8, 2005 Author Share Posted December 8, 2005 ....because it's not the subject of this thread. But we can start one if you like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 [quote user="le bouffon"]I do not need to read someone elses biased opinions to how to think,[/quote]Thank goodness some people are more open minded and willing to look at different facets of a topic !The killing of animals is a completley different topic as Christine says, if you want to discuss it feel free to start another thread but please keep in mind that although we have new software the same rules and regs apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
le bouffon Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Is that a threat from a mod?no I will not start a new thread because the subject is the same,animals dying with creulty if one is to listen to you the fact that it is creul to hunt foxes meant that it was banned, cut the throat of a sheep let it bleed slowly to death and that is all right yes or no?where is the difference.OK try this one catch a fox and tie it`s legs together then cut it`s throat and let it bleed to death,and yes some people do eat foxes here in france, since this is a topic mentioning foxes,would that be acceptable to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 In my opinion the religious practises of some ( and clearly you just want to have a pop at some religions) are cruel, but, that said, there is a huge difference between this and chasing some poor animal all over the country just for fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
le bouffon Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Why would that be,the fox has a chance and may get away,like I said some people eat foxes and there many old recipies for foxes, are you just against the people who hunt them on horse back kind of a class thing or are you for animal walfare,tell us all is it fair to cut the throat of some animal (foxes included they can be ate as well) and let them bleed to death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patmobile Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 [quote user="Russethouse"]The problem is that other people are harmed - land is trampled,crops destroyed, pets sometimes killed and other livestock jeopardized.For instance one of the members of the LACS group I used to belong tolived deep in the woods in a little cottage. They kept a few animalschickens, bantams and goats....the hunt went over their land and thenanny goat 'dropped her kid' meaning that they had no milk, lost thekid and nearly the goat as well. If the hunt had input into the numbers of foxes in the Uk thosenumbers would have altered when we had foot and mouth here - theydidn't.Cruelty to the fox is only one issue involved Bouffon, the guy whowrote the piece I previously posted (you might find itinformative) coined the term 'speciesism'. Perhaps he had you in mind !Oscar Wilde got it right ![/quote]Oscar did get it right, but that does not excuse the kind of vehementand personal abuse of a private person, who has committed no civiloffence, that I found in the piece by the Rassemblement Anti Chassequoted by you in your initial posting .Reasoned argument I can understand and respect, yet in spite of thefact that I find myself more against hunting with hounds than for it,this kind of hatred-filled rubbish has the effect of putting me firmlyon the side of the people who just want to quietly get on with theirperfectly legal activity.Your first paragraph above, if true, makes a good point. No doubthunt enthusiasts would argue that damage is always compensated orrepaired by the hunt. I believethat I posited, however, that the maintenance of a large fox populationin Britain mightbe the result of a couple of hundred years of work by the hunts,so I feel your point about foot & mouthhaving stopped hunting for a few months, without noticeable effect onnumbers, is much less telling.Suppose shooting all foxes on sight had been the accepted practice inBritain since, say, 1700. Would foxes now be as rare as bears orwolves are in the Pyrenees? I think they probably would. You might think this an acceptable trade-off - no foxes, so no hunting- but some would not agree. Hopefully, though, these dissenterswould not stoop to personal abuse of anyone with an opposingview. Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christine Animal Posted December 8, 2005 Author Share Posted December 8, 2005 Could you quote the piece of vehement and personal abuse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 If you really want to eat a fox or any other animal , do you really need to chase it half way across 3 counties. Class problem? no I know people who used to go ferreting and lamping with lurchers and I don't like that much either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patmobile Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 OK"Mais le même anglais, avide de cruauté, Jeffrey Quirk , quiavait sollicité la Ville de Pau, veut maintenant exercer sa violencesur les renards de Lascazeres dans les Hautes Pyrénées ! "I don't suppose Mr. Quirk, nor many of his friends, would agree withthis characterisation of him. I don't believe it myself, and I'venever met the man.Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Patmobile, that I found in the piece by the Rassemblement Anti Chasse quoted by you in your initial posting .I'd be amazed if I quoted any such thing - my French is abysmal [*-)]Bouffon,Cruelty to the fox is only one reason I don't approve of hunting - there are many others as I have pointed out. No, what I said was not a threat, just a reminder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Zoff Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 These hunters who eat the fox. Am I to assume they eat what the pack of dogs have kindly left for them? Mmmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christine Animal Posted December 8, 2005 Author Share Posted December 8, 2005 Your quote does not seem so terribly vehement and abusive Patrick, but of course it was not meant as a compliment either.Perhaps if ever people have the foxhunt come through their own garden, they will think differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 [quoteuser="chris pp"]What would seem more likely is that the Federation pour la Chase or itsaffiliated associations have refused membership to this bloke and as they(normally) own the rights for the areas that they are registered in - end ofstory! No membership - no hunting! I would have thought that this couldmake an interesting case if pursued.[/quote]A very interesting thought. I understood that to be a hunter in France you needed to take two tests:theory and practical tests (safety, species identification, knowledge of “closedseasons,” etc. – fine they may not allfollow the regs but I thought they had to at least take the tests) after whichyou could get your license. Thus, ifsomebody should visit from the UK, surely they also must take the tests andjoin the local chasse and get a lisense. Joining the local chasse might be a bit of a scheme toencourage the local hunt to accept them as they would get subscriptions forpeople visiting only occasionally. However, I would have thought that paying somebody who is a member (i.e.the “Quirk”) is not adequate to go hunting.I am visiting the president of my local area hunt next weekso will ask then. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 [quote user="Christine Animal"]Could you quote thepiece of vehement and personal abuse...[/quote] (Sorry, misunderstood the question so below is an example from personal experience. I'm sure the hunt protestors are not all angels).In the village where I used to live in the UK, there was oneperson who really enjoyed gardening and kept his garden “perfect” (living inthe middle of the village, not isolated). One day the hunt decided to ride “on mass” through his garden prettywell destroying it. Being a mildmannered person he just repaired all the damage (no claims against the hunt, nolegal action, no complaints to police, nothing like that) and put up some signssaying private and no hunting. Despitenot being asked for compensation, despite not having complaints made againstthem it seems the local hunt took exception to the idea they could not ridethrough his garden and for several years after that he was regularly (every fewdays during the hunting season) getting remnants of fox (guts, etc.) discardedin his garden. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.