Fox hunting is a much misunderstood thing. Hounds will not be sent down after a fox because lets face it, they're just slightly too big!
The hunt generally kills off the older or weaker foxes, as a healthy fox can easily outrun them. These older and weaker foxes are the ones more likely to kill chickens and the such as they cannot find food any other way.
With the ban of hunting, the culling of foxes will not stop. Since the population is not controlled by the hunt, more people will start shooting them, which can lead to injuries as a moving target is quite hard to kill cleanly. Also, it will be the healthier foxes that are culled aswell. People might even start snaring again, which a particularly cruel way of dealing with vermin and dangerous to other animals, but what other choices are there?
I am not an upperclass "toff".
I have seen the way anti-hunt protesters have behaved towards hunters, for example a small girl on horseback was surrounded by jeering antis and terrified. People have had their tyres deflated or cars scratched for supporting a rural service which few of the antis understand.
Get your facts right, give a worthwhile arguement, and then we might take you seriously.
The hunt generally kills off the older or weaker foxes, as a healthy fox can easily outrun them. These older and weaker foxes are the ones more likely to kill chickens and the such as they cannot find food any other way.
With the ban of hunting, the culling of foxes will not stop. Since the population is not controlled by the hunt, more people will start shooting them, which can lead to injuries as a moving target is quite hard to kill cleanly. Also, it will be the healthier foxes that are culled aswell. People might even start snaring again, which a particularly cruel way of dealing with vermin and dangerous to other animals, but what other choices are there?
I am not an upperclass "toff".
I have seen the way anti-hunt protesters have behaved towards hunters, for example a small girl on horseback was surrounded by jeering antis and terrified. People have had their tyres deflated or cars scratched for supporting a rural service which few of the antis understand.
Get your facts right, give a worthwhile arguement, and then we might take you seriously.
by The One... December 31, 2005
by Audrey Le October 6, 2004
I cannot understand this activitiy. Innocent lives are taken. A sport is fair, refereed, this is a free-for-all in the name of nothing. Some may misinterperate this as putting animals above humans, it's not it is giving them a chance to live the life they have been given without it being wrecked.
by Who cares? February 7, 2005
Fox hunting was not invented as a sport or as a way of controlling the fox population. It was invented so the local lairds could ride roughshod all over the land of the local peasants and constantly remind them who is boss. Farmers and the like I know of hate fox hunting, as the hunt tramples through their fields and the hounds kill their family pets. The modern fox hunters are not landed gentry, contrary to popular belief. Anyone can go on a fox hunt. Most are townie executives and the like having a thrill playing at huntsmen. I'm not a lunatic leftie, just for the record. I think a lot of what the anti-hunters do is disgusting. But at the same time shooting perfectly healthy dogs and smearing animal blood all over your face is hardly the apex of civilized society. Oh, and let's be honest about Tony Bliar and his puppet-masters. They didn't ban fox-hunting because they are kind and caring people. They banned it because they see the countryside as Tory territory (just like the South-eastern areas of England they are planning to turn into a concrete wilderness) and therefore the enemy.
Prince Charles went fox hunting. This is the man who is constantly ranting about how nasty people are to animals? And some people wonder why the royals are regarded as a joke by so many people.
by GSmith November 15, 2006
I would like to write this defintion as a response to the others. Fox hunting is not just a sport, it serves the purpose of controlling the fox population, which you would see is necessary following a little research into the issue, 'who care's?' who described it as 'in the name of nothing'.
Fox hunting is commonly misinterpreted by such prejudiced, narrow minded people as 'Andy' as a sport for the landed gentry. All I can say is don't be so bloody stupid. The majority of people who follow the hunt are ordinary working and middle class people. You are merely spouting a load of townie preconceptions that have no basis in fact, and the 'inverted snobbery' comment from 'James' further down was spot on.
And I would also like to mention that the fox is only ripped to pieces by the hounds AFTER it has been killed by a quick bite to the neck causing a death with the minimum of pain. The images you see from the RSPCA and the like (an organisation I would usually support) are just corpses, not live foxes. You may find this distasteful, but it can certainly not be described as 'cruel'.
You are also wrong in believing that the Hunt kills a fox every meet. I'm not sure of the exact figures but I would estimate that the fox has at least 50% chance of getting away. Also, your lack of historical knowledge, 'Andy', detracts from the validity of your whole 'argument', if it can be called that. Fox hunting dates back to Roman times, while general hunting with dogs as far back as the Ancient Egyptians. You are clearly making it up as you go along. Small farmers are exactly the people fox hunting protects, as they are the ones who suffer most when a fox kills every single chicken they own, or wipes out their new born lambs.
I strongly believe that anyone who takes the time to find out the facts about fox hunting will support it. The ban is an unfair piece of legislation forced through by discriminatory and ignorant MPs. Just compare the argument on RSPCA.com with the one on countryside-alliance.com and you'll see which one has no actual facts to back up its constant bleat of 'cruelty'.
Fox hunting is commonly misinterpreted by such prejudiced, narrow minded people as 'Andy' as a sport for the landed gentry. All I can say is don't be so bloody stupid. The majority of people who follow the hunt are ordinary working and middle class people. You are merely spouting a load of townie preconceptions that have no basis in fact, and the 'inverted snobbery' comment from 'James' further down was spot on.
And I would also like to mention that the fox is only ripped to pieces by the hounds AFTER it has been killed by a quick bite to the neck causing a death with the minimum of pain. The images you see from the RSPCA and the like (an organisation I would usually support) are just corpses, not live foxes. You may find this distasteful, but it can certainly not be described as 'cruel'.
You are also wrong in believing that the Hunt kills a fox every meet. I'm not sure of the exact figures but I would estimate that the fox has at least 50% chance of getting away. Also, your lack of historical knowledge, 'Andy', detracts from the validity of your whole 'argument', if it can be called that. Fox hunting dates back to Roman times, while general hunting with dogs as far back as the Ancient Egyptians. You are clearly making it up as you go along. Small farmers are exactly the people fox hunting protects, as they are the ones who suffer most when a fox kills every single chicken they own, or wipes out their new born lambs.
I strongly believe that anyone who takes the time to find out the facts about fox hunting will support it. The ban is an unfair piece of legislation forced through by discriminatory and ignorant MPs. Just compare the argument on RSPCA.com with the one on countryside-alliance.com and you'll see which one has no actual facts to back up its constant bleat of 'cruelty'.
Fox hunting should not have been banned, which anyone who understands the issues invloved should realise. Anyone who believes the foxes are better off with the ban is severely mistaken.
by Abi C July 11, 2005
Country activity carried out by normal, wage-earning, mortgage/tax-paying people, but which is vilified by town-dwellers because foxes look cute and TV tells them that "people who hunt are toffs" (although why being a toff is bad is not clear - inverted snobbery).
Hunting is as much fun as it possible to have. It will probably get banned, but we will carry on doing it anyway. Much police, CPS and court time will be wasted on trying to enforce a ban, meanwhile real crime continues unabated.
Hunting is as much fun as it possible to have. It will probably get banned, but we will carry on doing it anyway. Much police, CPS and court time will be wasted on trying to enforce a ban, meanwhile real crime continues unabated.
by fubarderby February 9, 2005
Fox hunting is a traditional countryside sport and is the only feasible way of controling the population of foxes. Contrary to popular belief it is a far more humain and fair way of reaching a healthy population when you consider that the only other available forms of culling are unnatural and artificial - gassing shooting Furthermore it is common for the hunt to ask the fox if he consents to the chase considering the little bastard has written off most animals in the local area all for his own enjoyment. The hunt followers who take part in the event fund the hunt staff (who are the only people who fully understand the sport) and in return spend the day boozing and chasing after loose women, in fact seeing the actual kill is fairly low on their list of priorities. The recent ban was a below-the-belt stab at the countryside and people associated with the sport. It has nothing to do with the welfare of the animals involved and generally has put more pressure on the government to continue their reign of stupidity to please a nation of big-brother watching, macDonalds eating, car stealing, council estate slobs
by Daisy Smith February 17, 2006