Crossposted:

go NOW to skynews site and vote on 'should hunting be banned?' and email Mr Blair - apparently he says most of his emails are from antis - so go on you hunt supporters, you have time to read this site so you have time to email Mr Blair - do it now before it's too late. tony_blair@new.labour.org.uk

 

Email sent.

Mine too ;)

Email sent

Interestingly, Radio 1 held a poll tonight and 64% were against the ban.

Should have had the vote on Radio 2 then ;)

Another email sent!

And another one sent.

Have sent mine and have copied in my local paper - lets hope they print it :)

So did the BBC and that poll showed 84% in favour of a ban :-D

I've e- mailed him too - come on all you anti - hunting folk we're almost there !

And we didn't even need to storm parliament! :)

I've e-mailed him giving my support for the ban.

I have emailed too. :) Don't like being told what to do.

Karen

I've e-mailed giving my support too for the ban..........sorry guys!

Neither would the hunting folk had they not been pushed to the end of their tether. I really dislike the way some of the anti's are so gleeful over the thought of people losing their livliehoods. But, lets face it, what do they know about country life eh?

As for the law not stopping people hunting, I'm sure on previous posts (other subjects), many people who say they are pro hunting have condemned anyone who is even mentioning breaking the law, wasting police time etc, one example being the Fathers for Justice protestor at Buck House. 
And I don't remember anyone on this site being gleeful about people losing their jobs as a result of the ban, this ban has been a long coming but many of those affected have not planned ahead, slowed down their breeding schemes etc, this has happened to numerous industries in this country, unfortunately in most cases it is a sad side effect of progress, this time I think it is a welcome effect of progress
(Sorry to ramble, must get the kids to school! :) )

I am not in favour of people breaking the law at all  - in any circumstances. OK ?? :)

Daisy

So, hypothetically speaking, if a ban on dog ownership was suggested because some people object to others keeping any dogs and that ban was voted in by people who don't understand the dogs at a time when it was politically beneficial to them to vote for it to attempt to appease a percieved majority and you were ordered to have your dogs put to sleep you wouldn't fight it in any and every way you could?

I do think that your point is a little hypothetical - but as you require me to answer it - then I would have my dogs put down if there was no other legal alternative. That does not mean that I would not make my views known - but I wouldn't break the law doing it. Of course, like you, I would hope that it would not come to that.

In a democracy - you cannot choose the laws that you will or will not keep :(

Daisy

No, but you can choose not to support what you consider an unjust, unthought-out law that is being rushed in through the back door to appease folk who mostly don't understand what they are screaming for to be banned on the basis that its politically driven. And if the government doesn't listen THATS when civil unrest occurs.

I hardly think this law is being 'rushed' in - this debate has been going on for ever.  As to people not knowing what they are 'screaming for' - even if we all agree that foxes/whatever need controlling, the hunting method is not a good way however you look at it, apart from the 'fun' aspect.

Fiona

Its been going on forever because for once people are standing up for what they believe in on both sides.

if we all agree that foxes/whatever need controlling, the hunting method is not a good way however you look at it
Thats your opinion.

Let me sum up what the vets said in the Burns report:

Conclusion

As members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons we submit therefore that hunting by hounds is the most natural and humane way of controlling the fox population in the countryside. Humane, since at all times the animal remains in its natural environment and the relatively short period of physiological stress that may be suffered in the final phase of the chase, followed by the almost instantaneous kill is not only acceptable but is the preferred method of culling a wild animal. By analogy similar conclusions may reasonably be drawn on the humane aspects of deer, hare and mink hunting. Hunting is the only method of culling that selectively maintains the health and vigour of a species. Hunting is environmentally friendly.

Which is why, if my memory serves me rightly, the Lords sent the bill back WITH amendments

That is the point of view that made me sit on the fence for a while :) because i did wonder if it was the most humane way.

But I feel it is the lesser of  2 evils - do we shoot or do we hunt? Because it is considered by some kindest, doesnt make it actually "kind" or "humane".
The digging out video i saw made me certain that if it gets to that stage then it is not humane at all. As for culling, we have deer culled in the forest, but it's done by someone who knows them and done with a gun. That i feel is humane, as the weakest or ill ones are culled and they aren't chased first.

JMHO ;)
Lindsay
X

Lindsay - have you read the digging out report by the vets in the Burns report? Makes interesting reading.

But what do vets know about animal welfare and suffering, Chloe? That should be left to MPs - especially when there's an election not too far off ....

I'm sorry, but that report should be clear enough to anyone with an open mind and animal welfare at heart.
:)

Thing is Choe that I was reading about a report today that said how inhumane it was to hunt a deer/fox to exhaustion.  This is a link to the RSPCA website which mentions the Burns report.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCACampaigns/Banhunting/BanhuntingMediapage&articleid=1053511825932

I think everyone should have a look at this and then explain how they can say it is humane!

Fiona

I'm not interested in RSPCA propaganda - have you read the Burns report?

Ask yourself - is a chase (where a fox has actually been seen stopping to kill a chicken!!) as stressful as being shot in the leg and dying through infection? Have you read the report where they say that it normal for a fox to be killed instantly - usually as a result of a tactical error and NOT being chased to exhaustion?

The 'Propaganda' you are not interested in includes video footage of a suppose humane kill of a fox, hare and deer by dogs.  It also includes post mortems, etc where they show the inuries that dogs had inflicted on the fox which were far from a quick death.  I have read parts of the Burns report but I have to say that my own eyes are more reliable for me and this footage has to be seen.

Fiona

When I was in the RSPCA it was acknowledged that hunting caused the least suffering to foxes. What has changed since 1980 when I left?

Visit the site and find out.  I have given the address above.  I think that in the last 24 years they have done more research (as you would hope) and have discovered a lot more.

Fiona

My computer won't show the videos, but I've listened to the commentaries, and no, there's nothing new there I'm afraid, not even after 24 years. The situation remains the same.

Well when I looked earlier, it said that they had carried out a post mortem on a fox that had been killed on a hunt and it had broken ribs, a broken leg, its lung was coming out of its body and various other injuries, but that its heart was intact as were all major arteries and its brain.  They said (RSPCA) that the animal would have taken several minutes to die and that unlike what is claimed there was no evidence that the dogs had bitten its neck to kill quickly.

The RSPCA are also asking people to email TB to thank him for stopping the cruelty.  If the RSPCA thought it was the best way, I don't think they would want it banned.

The videos show amongst other things, a deer being held by a man in water while the dogs attack it, and a hare being pulled between two dogs.

Fiona

The PM on that fox showed nothing that a fox doesn't do to lambs etc (the ones that aren't eaten) so that can be considered 'natural death by predator' and discounted.

In the early 1980s the RSPCA membership changed its stance from one of Animal Welfare to one of Animal Rights. Many members were expelled, and I'm afraid it became very much a political organisation instead of a charity. My B-i-L was an inspector at the time and many of them were sacked because they held the view that quality of life was more important than quantity.

Sorry but a fox doesn't chase a lamb for ages before it kills it.  Also, I am sure in one of the other posts that was one of the arguments for killing foxes - that they kill for fun.  I agree they need to be culled, but surely as the more intelligent species we should do it as humanely as is possible.

No, but they are known to attack lambs that are in the process of being born.

No, I agree, sometimes lambs are attacked while the ewe is delivering their twin. But they don't take it to eat it. It is left - that is not killing for survival.

And what is it about the RCVS conclusion in the Burns report that hunting is the most humane form of culling that you dispute?

That an animal is chased for ages in fear of its life (something that does not happen in Nature) and then ripped apart - which is not always as quick as is claimed.  Also as a form of culling it is VERY inefficient and I believe that is merely an excuse for continuing the sport (my opinion).

Also, any hunting animal will attack newborn animals - that is how they live - it does not make them monsters.

Hang on, Chloe - there is a lot of difference between 'not supporting' a bill and breaking the law :)

Daisy

I'd have to remind myself of the report to be honest, but i did a quick google and discovered that Lord Burns in 2001 did state that being pursued closely, caught and killed by hounds seriously compromised the welfare of the fox and fell short of standards expected re. humane killing of a wild animal.
Also p. 6.60 of the report states that lamping, if carried out properly, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting with hounds including digging out.

I would like to read the whole report again :)

Off for my tea now! :D

Lindsay
X

Yes, and it also says: 59 None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications. (Paragraph 6.59)

and:

60 Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out. However, in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods. We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern. (Paragraph 6.60)

61 In practice, it is likely that some mixture of all of these methods would be used. In the event of a ban on hunting, it is possible that the welfare of foxes in upland areas could be affected adversely, unless dogs could be used, at least to flush foxes from cover. (Paragraph 6.61)

If it didn't seriously compromise the welfare of the fox there wouldn't be much point in using it as pest control! :D

cross posting this which was posted anonymously on another site - makes interesting reading:


Since the introduction of the ban in Scotland the number of foxes killed has gone up fourfold. They still have to be controlled and instead of hunts doing it they are now shot, poisoned and trapped in far greater numbers.

Yep, really humane piece of legislation.

Destroy an ancient way of life, put people on the dole and make them homeless (most kennel men live on cottages tied to the job, the job goes and their home goes), cause 1000's of dogs to be put down (hounds do *not* make household pets) and have the countryside inaccessible for everyone as routes and rides are no longer maintained and farmers refuse access to the public.

If the government wants the countryside available as big park for everyone to come and play in then it should pay the people who currently look after it to maintain it. 
 

You're nearly there with a ban - but you're nowhere near stopping people hunting :D

So 84% are in favour of animals being shot (accepting accidents involving children) and possibly wounded, snared and poisoned (don't ever let your pet dog off the lead) throughout the year? They must really hate foxes. :(

Many of the people I saw interviewed last night concentrated on the social aspects and seemed to assume that because they hunted foxes then all the foxes were eradicated - hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 

Those for fox hunyting justify it by saying its the best way of controlling foxes but in the next breath they say 'well we hardly catch anyway anyway and only do it for a good ride across the countryside.'
They say they are all country people then why do they run over land the owners have asked them not to, break fences, block drives etc .
They ask the police to stop anti's harrasing them if they step out of line them but say they wont obey the law themselves if hunting is banned.
They say they are worried about their foxhounds if there is a ban. Well why what do they do with them when they are not young enough to hunt anymore? no lying beside a warm aga for them I suspect.
I for one would have more time for fox hunters if they just admitted they enjoyed it  and it stopped trying to justify themselves cus it just doesnt work.
Amos
 

No, it's not the 'best way', Amos if you consider numbers killed as a criterion. But it is the most humane way of killing the old and sick ones. Nobody wants to eradicate foxes entirely, just keep their numbers within tolerable limits. An adult fox's natural territory is approximately 1 square mile. If there are more than that then there is overcrowding and too much pressure for food, which is when they come into conflict with Man.

<<Nobody wants to eradicate foxes entirely,>>

No??  Maybe a few kept in wildlife parks so they don't die out completely but as a poultry keeper I would be quite happy to see the back of them in my area at the very least.

The best way to cut their numbers down would be to lace food with a fox contraception pill (much as they have done with the rabies vaccine to eradicate that in certain countries).