What do you think about fox hunting?

Question

Personally, I think its barbaric. Anyone who takes enjoyment out of slowly killing an animal is sick-minded.
does anyone else get annoyed by the slogan "fight prejudice, fight the ban"? what is that all about?
anyway, i'd be interested in your views and anyone 'for' fox-hunting to give a good reason why.

Answer 1

Its horrible. The whole pest buissness is ridiculous. If they were a pest why do they need to be chased by dogs until exausted and then ripped apart. This is quite close to my heart my mother was running as a fox hunt was on and saw a fox chased. Later she saw it exhausted and dying because of it . How is that at all justifiable it is just barbaric and power hungry. " fight prejudice fight the ban" what a load of .. . If it was tradition to kick your dog would it be prejudice to try and stop this.

Hunting was natural when we did it for food do people eat foxes no they kill them and show them off its nothing to do with natural instinct so there is no need for it . And the disgusting way in which they are killed is not needed. In fact none of it is needed .

May i add- the "fox hunting" going on in Iraq, im from the UK i equally think that is unfair . I was not old enough to vote when Tony Blair was elected into power nor do i think the majority of the UK believed that Tony Blair would decide to lead this country into war. I for one protested against it as did a lot of people in the UK but did they listen no they did not

Answer 2

Well you have caused a great fight hear, and what a suprise no e mail address available. FOX hunting is a tradition that has gone on since your grandfathers grandfathers grandfather was a bearn and will come back into play some day, it will never stay banned, Barbaric you say, well perhaps it is but the country is the playground of the country man not you city folk (antys), what gives you all the right to play god so to speak. Im a hunter(that wount suprise you though) but my prefferd tool is a high caliber rifle, a 243 which causes the fox no pain and ends the job no sooner than its started, Leave the country to the country folk please not you city lot who have not got a clue. If you want to put up a fight then e mail me then i ll give you one. fight prejudice, fight the ban By the way you just demenstrated the prejudice were talking about

Answer 3

I am getting sick and tired of having to read all this non0sense in a hunting forum. if maybe you people came to the terms that death is the natural cycle of life. Be it. I AS A HUNTER. Out smarted an animal in its habatit. Or be it You hit an animal with your car, bicycle, cart...whatever you wish to drive.

Top five Things that Die everyday:
1) Ants..we poison those..very slow death
2) Bugs smashed against your windshield
3) HouseFlies: Live 40 Hours that it
4) Mosquitoes: live less than a day
5) Deerflies: Live 56 hours

Yet not once do you people whine and complain about that spider you smashed or that roach crawlling on your floor that you crushed into the bottom of your shoe. NO NEVER...because they are not cute and cuddly... PLEASE...

There is nothing Barbaric about hunting... Go gripe about the LIONS killing Gazelles, or maybe the Elephants destorying acres of land a day, or maybe this one. THAT CUTE FOX...Find one and try and go pet it like your domestic dog...you will not have a finger or two...and it will probably run off and eat those.

The only right issue here...is anti-hunters are looking to destroy may hertiage: but you people do not get it. A FOX is a predator, by culling them back thru hunting: You can have your lamb chops and wine. A pack of 15 Foxes can kill animals 3x their size... They are not a true pack animal but in the past due to over-population in the late 1800's showned signs of grouping up and wholesale slaughter of the cows and lamb chops began.

Thanks

Answer 4

The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.

Unlike the majority of you folks I have no problem shooting a problem fox. If he has learned that lambs are easier to catch than rabbits then he can have a 223 in the chest and I won't lose any sleep over his death.

But the whole pro and anti fox hunting argument is dishonest. On the pro side it isn't a good way of controlling foxes and it doesn't result in the death of the problem ones. On the anti side, these are wild carnivores, the eat little bunny rabbits alive as the scream for mercy, a fox will cause much more suffering to the little fluffy creatures of the countryside than an oik on a horse ever will.

Foxes don't have any easy way out of this life, they don't go to the old fox home and blather about the near miss they once had with a combine on the back 40. They get bad teeth and starve to death, or they freeze to death in the winter, or they get hit by a car and crawl off and die some time later, or they get mixed up with a farm dog and get an infected bite that putrifies and kills them. Being chased down and murdered by a pack of idiots on horseback isn't significantly worse than that.

But that's not what this is all about, it's a bunch of horsey people, many of who are the sort you'd most like to see fall off a horse and others who are local secretaries and car mechanics, who use this as an excuse to ride around over land they wouldn't otherwise be allowed on. As a former horse rider and mountain biker I can tell you that horses do a lot more damage to paths than mountain bikes or pedestrians. But on the other hand we have a bunch of townies that know two fifths of bugger all about where their food comes from and how it ends up on their table, their argument doesn't get beyond "poor fluffy fox, looks just like my doggie, poor doggie" and "those look like rich people, I hate rich people, they should stop".

My friends farm in Northumberland, mixed cattle, sheep, arrable and contracting. These days it's not far above subsistance, no new cars, no posh holidays. They don't agree with fox hunting and didn't allow the hunt on their land. They also don't agree with idiots from Gosforth and Daras Hall turning up and telling them how to farm.

So in the end I could care less about the hunting, it didn't do much to the fox population and it gave the animal rights people something to focus on that didn't involve digging up dead relatives of guinea pig breeders (what scum digs up a corpse from a grave yard) and threatening publicans children because he serves farmed game (The Cockerel, Broom, Bedfordshire - I think it was ostrich or aligator that caused the idiots to lose the plot, and the name doesn't have the last four letters, the nany editor blanks out the short form of the name).

Hmm, barbaric, a good word for the behavior of the animals rights people too.

Answer 5

I say that the majority of people answering this question are townies. They do realise, I hope that now hunting is banned there are going to be fewer foxes about as it's not illegal to shoot them. 9 times out of 10 the fox would escape a hunt and only the weak or sick ones would be captured. Now that they are going to be caught in the rifle sights they have NO chance of getting away.

Answer 6

You know what's really stupid?
That all you people really believe fox hunting, in the manner that you are thinking of, horses and hounds and tooting horns, is still done with any regularity. In the States there is practically no one left that does it, anyway...it pretty much sunsetted in the fifties.

And you know what? Foxes are yet another of the critters out there that do quite well living in suburbs and in and around cities, and are among the first critters to get rabies. You know how you get rabies?
When a carnivore over populates, rabies invariably occurs.
When your kid has been bitten by a rabies-infested coon or fox, come cry to me about fox hunting, of any kind.

Answer 7

I've given a lot of thought to your question and spent a lot of time reading the many responses so far. First of all I believe by fox hunting you are referring to the English model of a lot of people in red riding to hounds in pursuit of the fox? I believe that is why you refer to it as barbaric and also make reference to getting enjoyment out of slowly killing an animal? I'll come to your second point shortly.

As a hunter I get no pleasure what so ever in the idea of inflicting pain on an animal. If you are going to raise a weapon against another living creature - animal or human - then the reason and the intention should be to despatch the target with as little pain as possible. I can find little or no excuse for riding to hounds in pursuit of a fox and the hypocrisy of it is summed up by the hunt who go into neighbouring areas to 'catch' a fox - to have it released on the land the hunt can legitamatly ride on so they have a fox to hunt! And pro-hunt lobby don't come back to contradict because I know it happens. However, as far as keeping a rampant fox population under control I am an advocate. When I was a game keeper in Cornwall, England, we spent a fortnight getting the local fox population under control. Over three nights we killed 27 foxes over a relatively small number of hectares. Many of them were in extremely poor condition and if we had caught them and taken them to the vet they would have been put down they were in such a bad way with a number of complicated problems. I would like to say that none of them suffered but that would be dishonest - of the 27 we killed only two weren't killed quickly and humanely and the guys responsible for the two that weren't were genuinely upset at their poor marksmanship in respect of the suffering of the animal. Anyway - on to your point about fighting prejudice. This is where the waters get really muddied. This is where politicians have gotten involved in issues that ought to be outside the political arena - for any number of reasons. There will always be two sides to a story and unless there is a clear political mandate declared at a general election that a party states its intention to do something if elected then it is a misuse of political power to use an enormous political majority to enforce part of the population to either do or not do something it has done for centuries because it doesn't suit a vociferous minority. I take the point raised by one of the previous answers regarding what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. I used to be in the Armed Forces and I used to have faith in our political leaders when it came to the deployment of our forces. I can only say that I am glad I no longer serve and having just lost two close friends in the Nimrod crash in Afghanistan can only see that as a tragic loss of life, with English men dieing to try and save the American Presidents face and ill-founded idea of enforcing democracy on a muslim state - but that's a different issue all together. A lot for you to get your head round I know. I don't support riding to hounds - never have - never will - nothing to do with jealousy or not understanding the rational of those that do - I just don't agree with it nor do I see the need. But I don't think it is an issue that Government can justify getting involved in. Hope that helps. Regards. Nigel

Answer 8

It is interesting to me that the majority of well thought out opinions belong to those not against fox hunting!

"Chris H" has made numerous excellent points. The summary of life in nature is that it's cruel, tough, and a constant struggle. Think off all the rabbits, mice, chickens, and game birds the fox has chased and leapt upon, biting deeply into their flesh, ripping and tearing, blood spurting, animals crying out...

It's the same thing. Dogs, much like, lions, tigers, and wolves have often hunted in packs. The only difference is, man rides along for the conclusion of the hunt. The enjoyment is not in the slow torturous death of the fox, but in the fast paced, adrenaline packed, race of the hunt. The conclusion is the reward, it signifies triumph, and ability, months of dog training, and years of breeding, horse training and time spent for the culmination of that event. That event signifies ability, competence, and achievement.

Is it barbaric? Uncivilised, cruel behavior not worthy of civilized (highly cultured in refinement or taste) people? Well it would be interesting to note that early hunts of this type were often for nobility as the common man could not afford the horses, and in some cases did not have the right to hunt the land. So it was the highest of scoiety that engaged in these pursuits. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting)

So I would say no to barbarism as it is completely natural. It provides an economic boost, it provides habitat for other creatures (as much of hunting does, because it is the hunter who often pays for habitat) . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_hunting)

It may seem hurtful to those who are shielded from the realities of life. But every living thing in the world is struggling, eating somethign else. Every insect, bird, snake, lion, cow is a part of this cycle of life. To be a hunter is merely to be a part of the natural world. To be closer to life itself. Those that would deny man that innate need are to distracted by pop culture, and fuzzy wuzzy bunny attitude, that is delusional.

It is a prejudice! People who think it's horrible, usually do not have well thought out ideas or reasons. They make decisions based on emotional impulses.

This is prejudice! (Prejudice is, as the name implies, the process of "pre-judging" something. In general, it implies coming to a judgment on the subject before learning where the preponderance of the evidence actually lies, or formation of a judgement without direct or actual experience. Holding a politically unpopular view is not in itself prejudice, and not all politically popular views are free of prejudice.)

Answer 9

I totally agree with you that it is barbaric, I can not understand how people can call it a sport they do not see the pain and suffering that these animals have to go through. I personally cannot imagine the fear they must feel having hounds breathing down their necks. I think that humans do these kind of things to make themselves feel that they are top of the food chain. The thing is though that they are actually really cruel to the hounds iswell, they do not feed them enough for up to a week before the hunt so that they are demented for blood. I live in the country in Ireland and the amount of hounds that have been left after hunts to roam around is unbelievable, they get lost during the hunt and then they never come back to get them. Needless to say these dogs will never make pets after they way they are brought up. And another thing is the poor horses do you know how many get put down after these cause they break a leg or their neck etc.

I will argue anybody that tries to justify this as a sport, we are living in the 21st century now we do not need to kill animals for sport, there is enough bloodshed in the world without some fat ignorant rich mindless individuals with nothing better to do with their sad existance on this earth sitting on a horse running around after a poor defenceless animals.

As you have probably realised i feel very strongly on this subject i am totally anti -hunting and basically anti anything that makes an animal suffer needlessly.

Answer 10

No easy answer I'm afraid. I have shot and fished for the table. If you eat meat I think it important that you confront the necessity of killing, provided this is done quickly and as humanely as possible. Fox control is a regretable neccesity. Gassing, poisoning and shooting all have their drawbacks. I do worry about the mentality of people who apparently relish riding after hounds-perhaps they are less sensitive to suffering and distress than most. To me, and this is perhaps a personal prejudice, fox-hunting belongs to one end of a spectrum of 'blood sports' which includes otter hunting (illegal now?), stag hunting and has at its extremes bull-fighting, badger and bear baiting which most would regard as vile, barbaric and disgusting. Serial killers often start their careers torturing and killing animals before graduating to human prey- I would therefore have serious concerns about your previous respondent.