I todays Sunday Telegraph there is a poll in which 70% of those polled said that the Police should not enforce the hunting ban. they say that the Police should concentrate on other areas of crime

Article

And it also says

"The poll also found that half the public supports the ban, while 35 per cent oppose it".

So well done Labour for finally introducing the ban, just  7 years too late!

and:

'More surprisingly, 23 per cent of Labour supporters were against it'

'Opposition to the ban was strongest among lower earners, bearing out claims by the pro-hunting lobby that the sport is not the preserve of "toffs".'

;)

Ok, I'm not going down this road again :)

Half want it and half dont, with both sides feeling equally strongly and with many justified opinions on both sides.  I am agreeing to disagree on this one.

I am mellow today!

So if half want it and half don't, why should the opinion of those who don't want it take precedence over those who do? Nobody's ever suggested making it compulsory! If you don't like it, don't do it ... ;)
:)

My only oppinion on this is hate any form of cruelty to any animal. So its great its been banned. No argument on the other side will ever make me see edifferent.
Maybe time we put all the hunters in a field and let a few lions or tigers hunt them doown.

So cruelty to animals is bad but cruelty to humans is OK? LOLOLOL

Well if they enjoy the chase so much why shouldnt they know whats its really like.

The long overddue and welcome ban is a reflection of the wishes of 50% of the country and is called democracy. 

The law fulfils the wishes of the elected House of Commons.

So to agree with the wishes of the other 50% would be undemocratic? Strange logic. ;)

So only half want the ban - and that half get it - and thats democracy?

"Opposition to the ban was strongest among lower earners, bearing " I often wonder where they get these figures from :-)) Who decides what catogory low earners are !!   I know they could ask but sometimes I often think media comments are so fabricated. ( not a dig at you Mel :-)) I just used your post as an example..

Hope you know what I mean. 

Country File Viewers today voted an amazing majority of 91% for keeping shoot hunting going and a very small minority of 9 % to ban it.

Says it all really ;)

The Police will not be able to sustain the policing of the hunt ban. They have said there is no more money in the budget and the money currently used to protect the pro hunt people for the anti's will have to be used.

Lucy
xx

This cruel, barbaric "sport" has been banned.  Accept the law of the land please.

Where did Lucy say she wasn't going to accept it - she just made a statement about some hunting folk?

<The long overddue and welcome ban is a reflection of the wishes of 50% of the country and is called democracy.
The law fulfils the wishes of the elected House of Commons>

The ban actually reflects the wishes of under 50% of elected MPs, not the wishes of their constituents, but their own personal choice (prejudice?)

Surely if a ban were truly democratic, it would have been carried by a yes vote of more than 50% of MPs? (not just the majority of those who could be bothered to attend and vote)

A true democracy protects the rights of minorities as well as the majority, otherwise minorities would always be prejudiced against.
For instance, I choose not to smoke but respect the right of others to do so. I do not need the Government to bring in a ban to protect me but it looks like this will also happen.

As a foretaste of things to come, how many of you have read the article in this weeks 'Dog World' concerning the hunting ban in Scotland?
Since the ban was introduced more foxes than ever before have been killed in Scotland, some hunts have doubled the number of foxes killed.
A quote from the Master of the Berwickshire Hunt "In my view there is more suffering for the fox now, because as anyone who knows who has been clay-pigeon shooting, they don't hit it everytime. Foxes are not easily shot and they are very tough animals. Thankfully my guns (marksmen) have learnt a great deal since the ban came into force, but it does happen that you only wound the animal and it gets away and suffers for far longer".

A quote from a spokesman for The Campaign For Animal Welfare in the same article "The ban had at least curtailed the brutal and barbaric practice of foxes being torn apart by a pack of dogs"

Ban hunting with dogs for the sake of animal welfare?, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Snomaes

All I can say, and it's probably been said a thousand times before, is that the fox in this country has no natural predators.   So in its own environment, it will naturally die a slow, possibly painful death by starvation or disease as it gets older and is incapable of hunting by itself.  

Is it better to cull the weak/old foxes using hounds - I think so.

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

I agree Jo, but as no-one actually sees the foxes starving to death (or the ones shot/gassed/poisoned) then apparently its ok for it to happen :rolleyes:  For myself - given the choice of a slow painful death or a good chase and quick death I'm pretty sure which I'd choose.

"Good chase and a quick death" Mmmmmmmmmm, if you keep saying it you will convince yourself.  This is not my own experience of hunting i'm afraid, and I grew up and live in a rural community.  That is not the reality, this is NOT a nice, quick death for the fox. Get real.

well I guess its all comparative isn't it?  poison can take days to kill, gas can take hours/days and being shot and injured an animal can take days/weeks to die, starvation can last months.  But then, as long as no-one has to watch.....

Thats the difference Dill ;)

Absolutely right, Dill. Out of sight, out of mind ...

The most amazing thing about this that I have found is that most people in the great General Public (ie with not ties to either hunting or anti) believe that the hunting ban means no killing foxes at all.  The message that they must be, and still will be after the ban, killed, simply has not got through!  When you tell people  that even more will now be killed, and in several unpleasant ways, they are disbelieving.  After all, it has been trumpeted as a "Hunting Ban" so this must mean a killing ban!  Thsi is why I take most of these polls wiht a pinch of salt, the vast bulk of the people were simply not interested enough to look at the issue, and are giving an opinion on an erroneous assumption.

bye
Gwen

Very good point there Gwen. I also believe that its case of denial and of "out of sight is out of mind".

You patronising twits!

  Anyway, lets not fall out, the ban is in so theres not much more to say!

Oh shut up Golden. Tell me - are you able to hold a decent debate without resorting to childish insults?

Pathetic.

You are the ones with the holier than thou, we know best attitude. 

Apparently not! You haven't answered my question above - why are you telling Lucy to "accept the law" when she hasn't said anything other than that she intends to? just stirring it again I suppose :rolleyes:

Golden I don't see you suggesting ways of dealing with the fox population?

Why does it need controlling ? because the natural prey of the fox was reduced by myxomatosis which was "accudentally"introduced into the UK & the pread was assosted by some people forcing foxes to search elsewhere for prey

Wolves were never the natural controller of foxes the numbers were as they are now controlled by food availability, man took away one source & supplied another in chickens & other animals in insecure compounds

Don't forget it is not just foxes but also deer that are hunted with hounds now why is that ? Obviously because the nasty vicious stags raid hen coops & kill lambs ? & I thought they were vegetarians ! I learn something new every day

I did not aim my comment on accepting the law to Lucy, it was aimed at all of you.  I know many of you have been snidely posting that you are above the law on other similair threads.

Please could you point out those posts to me, Golden? I seem to have missed them.

I never snidely post anything Golden.

I just stated that I will continue to do what I have done for years, and if that means breaking the law (not being above the law), then I am prepared to stand by my convictions with whatever punishment that may bring.  I together with thousands of others signed the Declaration last year and I will stand by that.

FIGHT PREJUDICE - FIGHT THE BAN AND KEEP THE FAITH.

Then perhaps instead of replying to Lucy you should have put a "To all who are planning on breaking the law..." after all, we're not psychic.

Golden

I could take offensive but frankly I haven't the time or the inclination to respond to you as I was just relaying a fact from a BBC program. Why should I accept the law of the land if we feel so strongly against it ? We have a right to protest as much as any anti hunting folk. Where does it say once a law has been passed that we have to accept it and shut up ?  It is still a country where we are allowed freedom of speech ? If so I will for one will continue to do so if I wish :)

Lucy

Oh dear. Resorting to name-calling again. :rolleyes:

'sticks and stones' Golden, but as it seems unlikely the law is going to be enforced, your short-lived victory seems rather hollow

JeanGenie, is Libertys post proof enough, together with Lady Dazzle?

"Like many Laws, including compulsory seat belts in cars, the Hunting Act will be resisted by some elements of society. It is, of course, the right of all citizens to campaign within the democratic process. However, no one is above the law and those who break it or commit other illegal acts to highlight their displeasure at the banning of their blood sport must be prosecuted.

The police will enforce the law. We and our members will bring to the attention of the police and the authorities any incidents we uncover of the law being broken. We will be vociferous in our demands that action be taken to enforce the law."

The arrogance displayed here is astounding.

Do you mean their posts from after you referred to ones where people ' have been snidely posting that you are above the law on other similair threads'? If so, no, because in neither of those posts is there the slightest implication that they are above the law.

LOL, I have neither the time nor inclination to trawl back for previous posts advocating law breaking.  We both know that many here feel they are above the law when it effects them.

Yeah whatever Golden

>We and our members

Who are these people? Who are you quoting?

I can assure you (though I doubt you'll believe me) that the police have no wish whatsoever to try to enforce the ban. Several Chief Constables have stated that it is unenforceable.

Sorry, the quote was taken from the League Against Cruel Sports.

I can assure you that the police WILL try to enforce the ban.

How does your moral conduct work on here.  If you dont agree with a law you break it, on the basis that the police have insufficient manpower to enforce the law!  Good morals girls.

Yes Golden, it is called passive resistance :) You need to address your anger issues, name calling will always weaken your argument and makes you appear childlike in the eyes of the people your are debating with :)

Golden, I don't hunt, so I have no intention of breaking any law! But I am a person who knows that nature is 'red in tooth and claw', not cosy. Death is a fact of life for all of us, and the quicker the death the better. Which is why I support hunting.

Well if you are a member of LACS that answers everything!! Nuff said :-(

Yes, the organisation which sacked their leader for doing research and having an open mind. :rolleyes:

"The RSPCA, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the League Against Cruel Sports have been working together to end hunting of foxes, deer, hares and mink with dogs since 1996 through a joint initiative known as Campaigning to Protect Hunted Animals (CPHA

Ah, and the RSPCA?  Does that "answer everything" 

Please dont post your silly faces at me, it makes you appear childlike and weakens your argument.

It's very strange. When I worked for the RSPCA in the 70s it was acknowledged that hunting, although anthropomorphs didn't like the idea, was the surest, most humane way of killing foxes. The facts of hunting haven't changed since then, so clearly it's the people's ideas that have.

"Statement supported by over 500 members of the Royal College ofVeterinary Surgeons:

Huntingby hounds is the most natural and humane way of controlling the population ofall four quarry species - fox, deer, hare and mink - in the countryside."
(Taken from General Brief for Report Stage and ThirdReading of the Hunting Bill, Wednesday 9 July 2003)

But what do vets know about animal welfare?

I read on a recent thread on another forum that the RSPCA have frequently callrd out the hunt to despatch a fox they cannot catch themselves in the past - and also any injured stags they also have not been able to catch - can anyone verify this?