1 definition by Abi C
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