<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by Wiltshirewoman
As hunting is the status quo it should not be down to foxhunters to campaign for it's continuance but for those against hunting to explain why we should not pursue the fox with hounds, mounted on horses.
As mounted foxhunters would be most affected by a ban on mounted foxhunting, I believe it should be up to those foxhunters, as well as others who are in favor of mounted foxhunting, to explain why they believe mounted foxhunting should be allowed to continue.
I invite you to do just that, if you feel so inclined. I'm sure those who have not yet made their own decisions in this matter, in addition to those who are interested in continuing this debate, would welcome your views.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Liberty:
I invite you to do just that, if you feel so inclined. I'm sure those who have not yet made their own decisions in this matter, in addition to those who are interested in continuing this debate, would welcome your views.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have outlined my views with supporting evidence fuly in thei forum. I have no inclination to go over it all again.
I do not want to change anything. It ain't broke and I don't see any reason to fix it.
You seem to want to change things. Make your case - convinve me that what I do is wrong and should be banned.
I'll listen, but to date you have not answered any questions sensibly. You suggest that if farmers are bothered by foxes they should pack up and go elsewhere - you seem to think more of the fox than you do of human beings.
By the way - you comments regarding farmers hardly apply in UK. This is a small country - roughly 1700 miles from top to bottom. This ain't the US and cannot be compared.
Maybe your thoughts are valid in your area - but not here.
In a free society, activities should be allowed unless it can be proven that they are harmful. it makes more sense to demand that government provide justification for restricting freedom than to insist that citizens defend their freedom. I find it ironic that someone who chooses Liberty for a screen name advocates a system where the government can randomly target any activity and ban it unless the participants provide suitable justification for allowing it to continue.
I thought Bgoosewood made some great points and had valid questions on page 6. And I agree with her that I can't make a choice as to what goes on in England with regard to foxhunting - I this that is up to the people of that country.
That said, I don't "think" (and I could be wrong)that anyone here on this board is saying foxhunting as a passtime should be banned. I think the point was being made that not all aspects of it appear to be humane or at all necessary and that a similar result could be obtained through a draghunt as opposed to a live hunt. Do you feel that that infringes on your rights and if so why?
Most hunting in the UK takes place across private land, and hunts must have the permission of the farmers/landowners. There are some benefits to a farmer in permitting access to a fox hunt, such as pest control and being seen to/wanting to support rural traditions which offset the inconvenience of hundreds of mounted followers and car followers trampling over the land. They do not obtain any benefits from draghunting.
The farmer who owns the yard where I keep my horses allows the fox hunt over the farm but would not allow drag hunting. He doesn't see the point in drag hunting.
A bloodhound pack used to visit where I was previously a couple of times a season. They hunted the clean boot ie the unaided scent of a man. However they had to stop because the landowners didn't want them on their land. They did still allow three fox hunts (we were on their boundaries) and a beagle pack (followed on foot) to hunt over the land. I did find this a bit of a nuisance as a non-hunter...finding a Saturday to go out for a hack without inadvertently joining in a hunt! Still, I discovered my mare does a very nice passage when suitably stimulated!
First of all, I'm not advocating government being able to "randomly target any activity". Where did I ever say that? Secondly, I've made already made my position clear in this thread, and not only is my position based on my personal OPINION, but it also based upon the overall findings of the hunting inquiry that was done by impartial researchers, the link to which I've posted here several times. Thirdly, I'm a bit tired of those who pick and choose only certain excerpts from my posts in order to try to make their point(s), not to mention those who resort to making personal affronts to my nature, intelligence, and even my posting name, because of my beliefs and opinions. It may surprise some of those folks to know that I am not a "city person" or "suburbanite"; I am a person who has kept my own horses on my own properties for over 30 years, despite having to relocate because of rampant development that still threatens my chosen way of life. I don't like having to relocate, but that is something I have had to do in order to maintain the lifestyle I have chosen for myself and my horses.
Lastly, it's obvious that those who do not relish the idea of chasing, and the occasional subsequent violent death of the fox, are being unfairly unlabelled to be extremists bent on across-the-board infringement on the rights of all others. In my case, that's not true at all. I simply don't see the "entertainment", "sport", or whatever one want to call it, in chasing down foxes, or any other animal for that matter. Nor do I see where it serves a practical purpose when all is considered, and neither did the impartial researchers who studied this matter in depth.
I'm still waiting for someone to objectively and politely present facts that prove the humanity and practicality of mounted foxhunts involving live quarry. And it appears that I'm not the only one in this thread who's waiting to hear this.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>. I simply don't see the "entertainment", "sport", or whatever one want to call it, in chasing down foxes, or any other animal for that matter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fair enough. Don't participate.
Of course you have a right to your opinions and to choose your activities. What is being questioned, at least by me, is your (and others') assumption of right to limit the choice of activities for those who disagree with you by imposing your opinion on them, for no good reason. Even the links you posted indicate at worst that mounted foxhunting is not the most efficient way to control the fox population. If inefficiency were enough to condemn activity, there'd be few human activities left. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
Hmmmm... I think one of the things that is not clear to those who do not care for foxhunting is that fox/coyote hunting/chasing in the US is mostly a passtime (in my opinion). In GB and some other places, it is a manner to rid the coutryside of pests. Arguably, in some places in the US coyotes are becoming pests. Foxhunts could be a good tool to help manage the population. That doesn't seem to be the case at the moment, but it may not be far off in the future.
I'll say it: Hunting/chasing is fun. Watching the hounds work or just goof off and be hounds in beautiful country is enjoyable. Teaching young people and reminding myself about land and conservation and appreciation of the wild is rewarding, and good for all in the long run. Sand County Almanac good. Letting horses be horses in open country and gallop in groups is like nothing else. Viewing a coyote (I've never viewed a fox, myself) is thrilling. They are stunning animals suited perfectly to their environment. In the 5 years that I have been hunting, our hounds caught and killed one coyote. Sadly, we have all seen many more than that hit on the road. Yes, there is a quarry cost associated with fox/coyote chasing in the US. Within the larger scheme of reality, that cost is small and bearable to me. I understand that some would like no coyote or fox chased or killed due to foxhunting/chasing. I guess we disagree concerning the bearable costs.
I have never been on a drag hunt, but hope to soon. It may be great. However, knowing that someone else knows exactly where the hunt will go and how it will end, and that the hounds will probably not lose the scent no matter what, makes it basically a guided trail ride on steroids. Something wonderfully unpredictable will be lost in the translation.
Hunting is a beautiful way of life to some. I think our fundamental difference lies in the bearable quarry cost.
I wonder if those who oppose fox/coyote hunting in the US would give up their cars because they might hit and kill a coyote or fox on the way to the Quick Trip? This is a rhetorical question to which I do not require an answer-- I only request some thought.
I have to say that I really enjoy reading both sides of this argument. We have some posters here who are able to express their opinions in such a wonderful and informative way, such as Camstock's recent post. Your honest and well written post Camstock does so much more in my opinion than someone saying well, if you don't like it don't do it or coming up with other vague arguments. Thanks very much for your post.
Yeah....what miniwelsh just said. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Another point is that when using hounds to hunt and kill an animal, it ends up being a true cull, rather than other forms of hunting, where the biggest/prettiest/healthiest animal is taken, and thus weakening the genepool.
Don't squat with your spurs on
- A Cowboy's Guide to Life
The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. Oscar Wilde
You've expressed much of what those who love hunting feel.
I'll be honest; I don't have the patience to analyze and express the points the way you did. Getting too old and cantankerous to take time to justify my activities when IMO they shouldn't require justification. Live & let live, dammit!