I fail to see how it is a left wing thing to be against fox hunting. And I fail to see how the fact that you may think it is, is a reason not to care one way or the other.
Absolutely right. There have been some ridiculous comments on this thread , mainly from the usual suspects looking for a reaction but calling people who are against Fox hunting "left Wing" is the laziest , most ill informed comment out of the lot.
To be fair, there have been a few ridiculous descriptions and generalisations made by the usual suspects about the hunting fraternity. This forum is well balanced in many ways Red.
I fail to see how it is a left wing thing to be against fox hunting. And I fail to see how the fact that you may think it is, is a reason not to care one way or the other.
I fail to understand how you fail to understand my opinion, agree to disagree would be the case.
This was about the number of hounds (from 2 to a few more) but only to chase the vermin out at which point they would be shot - just the same as the law is currently in Scotland.
Country rules for country people in my mind.
If they could get a few people with sticks round to get rid of the menacing grass snake in my back yard though.
I fail to see how it is a left wing thing to be against fox hunting. And I fail to see how the fact that you may think it is, is a reason not to care one way or the other.
Absolutely right. There have been some ridiculous comments on this thread , mainly from the usual suspects looking for a reaction but calling people who are against Fox hunting "left Wing" is the laziest , most ill informed comment out of the lot.
(I find it strange that significant numbers of antis would cheerfully watch "posh people" being subjected to the foxes' fate. It's always because they are "posh" or "toffs". Posh people (define?) may come across as odd/daft/whatever but isn't this just another form of phobia? Who is looking out for this minority group?)
Hunting's days are done so I don't get why Cameron wants to make it an issue again other than to wind up the legions of urban fox-lovers and get widespread bad press. Very odd.
It's worthy of parliamentary time because the Tories had it in their manifesto BK. The minority group of posh people are looked out for by the other posh people who have all the money and influence. And I don't think that Cameron's government cares what people think or about bad press, as they have their extra five years to fill their pockets and then fuck off somewhere else when the shit hits the fan.
You still dont seem to get it. 1. hunting is far far removed from being a posh boys activity. You appear to have a real chip on your shoulder about ''posh'' people but as stated earlier, the vast majority of hunts are a cross section of society. Just because they dress up doesnt make them posh. (BTW and unrelated to hunting, do you consider every Charlton player of the past 2 decades as posh? Because in income terms they surely must be worthy of your ire!)
2. As I understand it (from a friend who is a hunter) the amendment is simply to increase the number of dogs used to flush to the gun, which is how hunting is supposed to be done currently. In Scotland you can have unlimited dogs to flush out Mr Fox to be shot, in England you are only allowed 2. Personally I have serious doubts that all foxes are shot (I've heard some hunts dont even take guns with them!) as opposed to being killed by dogs, but that is supposed to be happening since the change in rules. The amendment is to allow English hunts to use unlimited dogs like in Scotland. Not sure hunting ban is the correct term picked up by the media, though I stand to be corrected.
1) It also depends on your definition of posh and chip on your shoulder - I always think of chip on shoulder as being something disputable, however the advantages afforded to the richer members of society are clear for all to see - that is indisputable. My definition is wrong I discover, so yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder, but I am not wrong in my reading of society. Take a look at the make up of the boards of the footsie 100 companies, the two houses of parliament and the bilderberg group if you want any proof, Art.
2) I have no problem with defending the poorer and less privileged and I have no problem with drawing attention to those who for their own interest like to keep it that way. If that makes me chippy - so be it, I wear the badge with pride. Sadly in their quest for superiority the "ruling classes" are blind to the fact that the man or woman who could discover the cure for cancer may be living on a council estate in Peckham, but due to policies that make it more and more difficult for the underprivileged to get themselves out of that situation, that person will probably end up as a (non fox hunting) clerk in the DSS.
Your posts really confused me sometimes Algarve, it's obviously nothing personal against you, I just really don't see where you're coming from at times.
Point 1, do you really think that wealth and the hard work that has gone into acquiring that wealth should not lead to certain advantages in life? If it didn't, what would be the point? I'm not sure anyone would dispute those advantages, although I can't see how anyone could suggest they shouldn't exist.
As for your second point, I know I've not lived in the UK for a while now, although I do try to keep up with the news and other current events, so I'm shocked that it appears those nasty Tories have banned poor people from the education system. It's a shame really, the student loan system was a fantastic way of enabling our poorest members of society the chance of a great education.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to make myself clear Stu - I confuse myself sometimes... And I don't take it personally at all - it's a forum, it's all about debate.
The problem I have is that a huge number of the people I talk about have not acquired the wealth to give them the advantages in life, their parents or grandparents have, or their grandfather 20 times removed happened to pick the right side in a dust up. They get to go to a better school and a better university, and they can then go into an internship, unencumbered by the thought that they will have a whacking great loan to pay back, or simply have to feed themselves. A lot of the time Uncle Hector is on the board and they get the job that way, a lot of them can cruise through because the system has been up and running for years, they play the game and go to the right social functions to work their way up - I can't be the only one who has encountered managers promoted way above their ability because they have played the political game and have family ties?
As for education, it was those nasty new Labourites who brought in student loans, previously higher education was free, for all. No one had to be concerned about starting work with a whole load of debt on their shoulders. I was suggesting that some talented people faced with going out and making a living now - because their family needs them to earn, or they need to get away from where they are, or whatever reason - or using their talents to gain a degree and go on to be a brilliant chemist, will choose the former.
A good reply Algarve (though I believe our welfare budget suggests those less well off do have access to benefits and board members of free market businesses employing thousands of workers seems an odd example to choose) but I've seen a couple of hunts and those participating were far from the hated 'toffs'. I trust my first hand experience.
Interesting Wiki entry on the make up of Hunts
... the social aspects of hunting as reflecting the demographics of the area; the Home Counties packs, for example, are very different from those in North Wales and Cumbria, where the hunts are very much the activity of farmers and the working class. The Banwen Miners Hunt has been used as an example, founded in a small Welsh mining village, although its membership now is by no means limited to miners, with a cosmopolitan make up
Cheers Art, I have read my missive a couple of times and I can't see where I even hint at the less well off not having access to benefits? The only mention of anything to do with benefits was my (non-hunting) DSS clerk. Let's make him a wages clerk at B & Q if that's where the confusion lies...
I will have to bow to your superior knowledge on the hunt - I have never met anyone who has hunted, even the few "posh" people I know abhor it.
But you will see from previous posts, my only objection to fox hunting has always been the cruelty, not who is involved.
I've got an open mind though and will listen to any argument telling me otherwise
Plant life differs from other forms of life only by virtue of a nervous system. Justifying the taking of plant life on the grounds it isn't "cruel" means you can justify taking any other form of life if it doesn't trigger a reaction in the nervous system. It's a get out for vegetarians.
Looks like your scientific knowledge is better than mine, but somehow I can tell the difference between plants and animals, for example they don't test make-up on a lettuce.
Yes but that's because dogs are more attractive than lettuces.
Again Algarve, I don't see the problem, if I work hard and make a success of my life of course I would want to pass that onto my children, grandchildren etc.
Of course people will get promoted above their ability but and at it sucks, trust me, its happens far, far more often over here.
Unless we are going to move over to some Communist utopia it's never going to change.
In reality I'm not sure the loan system has changed much, my Mum didn't go to University as her parents needed her to go to work. Luckily I could, with support of a student loan, the monthly repayments are very reasonable and if I ever find myself out of work, or have to accept a low wage I can't stop my payments.
V Tru Stu.. But it's interesting though. My last thought on the subject is that it can change without becoming a communist utopia, it's just the placid acceptance that keeps the unfairness going.
I agree it's not a political issue as it seems pretty clear cut that people from all walks of life have pretty strong views on it.
Naturally as a Labour supporter you will jump on it as a stick to beat the Tories with, as you would if it was the other way around. Similarly the SNP have embarrassed themselves in my mind by jumping on a bandwagon when actually it would be mimicking the rules north of the border; a real gesture would've been tightening up their own legislation!
It's sad because it's a serious issue; and I think if anything the situation needs further tightening. I call utter nonsense on the claim that it's feasible to use <2 dogs to "<i>flush out" foxes in to some form of kill zone where you can target them with guns. When I was growing up I was a cadet and shot for my county, from 20m with old Lee Enfield No 8's (No 4 rifles recalibered for .22LR) up to 400m with 5.56, and a shoot with a 7.62 target rifle; I was a decent shot, but that was against a life size stationary target. If you're telling me that using two dogs helps you shoot an animal I want to know:
- You're shooting something that's about 12" tall, and not much longer; are you telling me that you need the added challenge of having it running for it's life? - You now have the risk of two other animals in your sight picture, is that really making your life easier - and are you going to take the shot and risk one of the dogs, if not - what's stopping the dogs from ripping the fox apart? The risk of hitting one of the dogs seems quite sizable. - With the animal being chased, pretty fast, you're going to not only have to hit him with the shot (and first shot, considering the pace of the dogs in pursuit), but actually kill him. If not, are you going to take a follow-up shot before the dogs get there? Would you risk a secondary shot once the dogs have arrived? The chances of a one shot kill seems remote.
You only have to look as far as lamping; whereby you stun an animal with a bright light before dispatching a shot - allowing a clear shot with a higher chance of a clean kill. It would seem counterintuitive to do the opposite and purposely get the animal in to a state where targetting it is more difficult.@brogib, I know you do this kind of stuff for a living - but is my assessment a fair one with regards to flushing foxes out with dogs before attempting to gun them down?
The current rules don't seem logical, and in my opinion were more for PR and the ability to say 'We've banned fox hunting!'; which is political speak for 'We've looked like we've banned fox hunting, but enjoy the plausible deniability that comes with a very peculiar set of rules that will be unenforcable!'. Time to leap on to the current media attention and campaign for a flat-out ban on using dogs in fox hunting full stop; no excuses and no overly complex rules.
Where are they 'flushing' the foxes from? If it's from a burrow or similar then surely something more 'aggressive' than a light would be needed to get them out?!?
I'm not fussed either way on the issue at hand to be honest (ie number of dogs) - but do agree that full on fox hunting is barbaric and doesn't have much of a place in modern society.
I also agree with those questioning the air time that this is being given in government given the number of other political, social and financial issues being faced today.
Where are they 'flushing' the foxes from? If it's from a burrow or similar then surely something more 'aggressive' than a light would be needed to get them out?!?
I'm not fussed either way on the issue at hand to be honest (ie number of dogs) - but do agree that full on fox hunting is barbaric and doesn't have much of a place in modern society.
I also agree with those questioning the air time that this is being given in government given the number of other political and financial issues being faced today.
mmm, Good point - maybe my "lamping" example wasn't the best as that's generally used in the open to temporarily freeze the animal (think deer in headlights) allowing a shot to be dispatched. However, it was more to underline the fact that I would expect the desired outcome of whatever approach is used to be the animal being stopped, not chased.
Chickens are lovely birds, lay lovely eggs, eat slugs and when attacked by foxes are routinely slaughtered and are not taken away to be eaten, just mass slaughter. We have had many of our chickens slaughtered even though there are an abundance of rabbits widly roaming the heathland where we live, heads removed and nothing else take. For me legalise hunting once more, a great countryside tradition, and I know for a fact the hounds do create employment for locals as well as local working class people joining the hunts.
Leaving aside the treatment of the foxes, what about the lardarse horse riders treatment of the horses? They stick a lump of metal in their mouths, jerk their heads around, kick them in the sides, whack them to run fast and jump over stuff whilst carrying their obese carcasses. It isn't only the dogs and foxes in thrall to the humans, but horses as well.
I agree it's not a political issue as it seems pretty clear cut that people from all walks of life have pretty strong views on it.
Naturally as a Labour supporter you will jump on it as a stick to beat the Tories with, as you would if it was the other way around. Similarly the SNP have embarrassed themselves in my mind by jumping on a bandwagon when actually it would be mimicking the rules north of the border; a real gesture would've been tightening up their own legislation!
It's sad because it's a serious issue; and I think if anything the situation needs further tightening. I call utter nonsense on the claim that it's feasible to use <2 dogs to "<i>flush out" foxes in to some form of kill zone where you can target them with guns. When I was growing up I was a cadet and shot for my county, from 20m with old Lee Enfield No 8's (No 4 rifles recalibered for .22LR) up to 400m with 5.56, and a shoot with a 7.62 target rifle; I was a decent shot, but that was against a life size stationary target. If you're telling me that using two dogs helps you shoot an animal I want to know:
- You're shooting something that's about 12" tall, and not much longer; are you telling me that you need the added challenge of having it running for it's life? - You now have the risk of two other animals in your sight picture, is that really making your life easier - and are you going to take the shot and risk one of the dogs, if not - what's stopping the dogs from ripping the fox apart? The risk of hitting one of the dogs seems quite sizable. - With the animal being chased, pretty fast, you're going to not only have to hit him with the shot (and first shot, considering the pace of the dogs in pursuit), but actually kill him. If not, are you going to take a follow-up shot before the dogs get there? Would you risk a secondary shot once the dogs have arrived? The chances of a one shot kill seems remote.
You only have to look as far as lamping; whereby you stun an animal with a bright light before dispatching a shot - allowing a clear shot with a higher chance of a clean kill. It would seem counterintuitive to do the opposite and purposely get the animal in to a state where targetting it is more difficult.@brogib, I know you do this kind of stuff for a living - but is my assessment a fair one with regards to flushing foxes out with dogs before attempting to gun them down?
The current rules don't seem logical, and in my opinion were more for PR and the ability to say 'We've banned fox hunting!'; which is political speak for 'We've looked like we've banned fox hunting, but enjoy the plausible deniability that comes with a very peculiar set of rules that will be unenforcable!'. Time to leap on to the current media attention and campaign for a flat-out ban on using dogs in fox hunting full stop; no excuses and no overly complex rules.
I was trying to keep out of this one, @LuckyReds mate. ; )
There's two reasons why people shoot/hunt foxes, tied in to the single reason that they need controlling (Though I don't think anyone is arguing that.)
If a gamekeeper or farmer wanted to get rid of some foxes from their land, they would use dogs to flush them, but they would always have used a shotgun and at quite close range (The same method was also used for rabbits).
When lamping a rifles is used (as you rightly pointed out), but it's not aways stunned by the lamp as some people prefer to use coloured filters that the fox won't see and nowadays nightvision is by far the best way to shoot foxes and rabbits, with a little "squeek" the fox or rabbit will stand or sit still and you can shoot it with relative ease.
The whole argument regarding Fox Hunting I'm staying out of.
Comments
Country rules for country people in my mind.
If they could get a few people with sticks round to get rid of the menacing grass snake in my back yard though.
The problem I have is that a huge number of the people I talk about have not acquired the wealth to give them the advantages in life, their parents or grandparents have, or their grandfather 20 times removed happened to pick the right side in a dust up. They get to go to a better school and a better university, and they can then go into an internship, unencumbered by the thought that they will have a whacking great loan to pay back, or simply have to feed themselves. A lot of the time Uncle Hector is on the board and they get the job that way, a lot of them can cruise through because the system has been up and running for years, they play the game and go to the right social functions to work their way up - I can't be the only one who has encountered managers promoted way above their ability because they have played the political game and have family ties?
As for education, it was those nasty new Labourites who brought in student loans, previously higher education was free, for all. No one had to be concerned about starting work with a whole load of debt on their shoulders. I was suggesting that some talented people faced with going out and making a living now - because their family needs them to earn, or they need to get away from where they are, or whatever reason - or using their talents to gain a degree and go on to be a brilliant chemist, will choose the former.
I will have to bow to your superior knowledge on the hunt - I have never met anyone who has hunted, even the few "posh" people I know abhor it.
But you will see from previous posts, my only objection to fox hunting has always been the cruelty, not who is involved.
Of course people will get promoted above their ability but and at it sucks, trust me, its happens far, far more often over here.
Unless we are going to move over to some Communist utopia it's never going to change.
In reality I'm not sure the loan system has changed much, my Mum didn't go to University as her parents needed her to go to work. Luckily I could, with support of a student loan, the monthly repayments are very reasonable and if I ever find myself out of work, or have to accept a low wage I can't stop my payments.
Still we're way, way OT here.
Naturally as a Labour supporter you will jump on it as a stick to beat the Tories with, as you would if it was the other way around. Similarly the SNP have embarrassed themselves in my mind by jumping on a bandwagon when actually it would be mimicking the rules north of the border; a real gesture would've been tightening up their own legislation!
It's sad because it's a serious issue; and I think if anything the situation needs further tightening. I call utter nonsense on the claim that it's feasible to use <2 dogs to "<i>flush out" foxes in to some form of kill zone where you can target them with guns. When I was growing up I was a cadet and shot for my county, from 20m with old Lee Enfield No 8's (No 4 rifles recalibered for .22LR) up to 400m with 5.56, and a shoot with a 7.62 target rifle; I was a decent shot, but that was against a life size stationary target. If you're telling me that using two dogs helps you shoot an animal I want to know:
- You're shooting something that's about 12" tall, and not much longer; are you telling me that you need the added challenge of having it running for it's life?
- You now have the risk of two other animals in your sight picture, is that really making your life easier - and are you going to take the shot and risk one of the dogs, if not - what's stopping the dogs from ripping the fox apart? The risk of hitting one of the dogs seems quite sizable.
- With the animal being chased, pretty fast, you're going to not only have to hit him with the shot (and first shot, considering the pace of the dogs in pursuit), but actually kill him. If not, are you going to take a follow-up shot before the dogs get there? Would you risk a secondary shot once the dogs have arrived? The chances of a one shot kill seems remote.
You only have to look as far as lamping; whereby you stun an animal with a bright light before dispatching a shot - allowing a clear shot with a higher chance of a clean kill. It would seem counterintuitive to do the opposite and purposely get the animal in to a state where targetting it is more difficult. @brogib, I know you do this kind of stuff for a living - but is my assessment a fair one with regards to flushing foxes out with dogs before attempting to gun them down?
The current rules don't seem logical, and in my opinion were more for PR and the ability to say 'We've banned fox hunting!'; which is political speak for 'We've looked like we've banned fox hunting, but enjoy the plausible deniability that comes with a very peculiar set of rules that will be unenforcable!'. Time to leap on to the current media attention and campaign for a flat-out ban on using dogs in fox hunting full stop; no excuses and no overly complex rules.
I'm not fussed either way on the issue at hand to be honest (ie number of dogs) - but do agree that full on fox hunting is barbaric and doesn't have much of a place in modern society.
I also agree with those questioning the air time that this is being given in government given the number of other political, social and financial issues being faced today.
All 3 are beautiful creatures.
None should be hunted, killed or cooked IMO.
It isn't only the dogs and foxes in thrall to the humans, but horses as well.
There's two reasons why people shoot/hunt foxes, tied in to the single reason that they need controlling (Though I don't think anyone is arguing that.)
If a gamekeeper or farmer wanted to get rid of some foxes from their land, they would use dogs to flush them, but they would always have used a shotgun and at quite close range (The same method was also used for rabbits).
When lamping a rifles is used (as you rightly pointed out), but it's not aways stunned by the lamp as some people prefer to use coloured filters that the fox won't see and nowadays nightvision is by far the best way to shoot foxes and rabbits, with a little "squeek" the fox or rabbit will stand or sit still and you can shoot it with relative ease.
The whole argument regarding Fox Hunting I'm staying out of.
I really want to shoot the wood pigeons that come in my garden.