Re:

you know? said:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:42:45 +0000, " [Not Responding] "
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

And there was parliament labouring under the impression the ban was a
ban on animal suffering when all along it was a ban on people enjoying
themselves.

No, not enjoying themselves, enjoying killing things. There is a
difference. Drag hunting remains legal, after all.

Yet said things are still to be killed, but in less effective (and
probably less enjoyable) ways.

Please explain the importance of your difference.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:52:12 +0000, [email hidden] (Nick Kew)

Quoted message said:

They might already have a judge lined up, and plans for ensuring they
get the right judge. A ruling in their favour at any level would be
a huge propaganda coup.

Have you strayed over to discussing certain inquiries into weapons of
mass destruction / invasion of Iraq, perchance?

(First agree the verdict, then select your chairman).

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:19:34 +0000, Al C-F
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And there was parliament labouring under the impression the ban was a
ban on animal suffering when all along it was a ban on people enjoying
themselves.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, not enjoying themselves, enjoying killing things. There is a
difference. Drag hunting remains legal, after all.

Yet said things are still to be killed, but in less effective (and
probably less enjoyable) ways.

In what way is two men with a gun less effective than a crowd of
people on horseback and a pack of dogs carefully bred to be not much
faster than the quarry? To say nothing of the hunts which have had to
work hard to ensure and adequate supply of "vermin" to "control".

Quoted message said:

Please explain the importance of your difference.

I would have thought that was obvious. There is nothing about hunting
for pest control which requires anything like the numbers of people
involved. It is extraordinarily inefficient! I can't imagine why
Maggie didn't ban it...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:19:34 +0000, Al C-F
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>And there was parliament labouring under the impression the ban was a
>ban on animal suffering when all along it was a ban on people enjoying
>themselves.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, not enjoying themselves, enjoying killing things. There is a
difference. Drag hunting remains legal, after all.

Yet said things are still to be killed, but in less effective (and
probably less enjoyable) ways.

In what way is two men with a gun less effective than a crowd of
people on horseback and a pack of dogs carefully bred to be not much
faster than the quarry? To say nothing of the hunts which have had to
work hard to ensure and adequate supply of "vermin" to "control".

never saw the logic of this; the creatures are dug out ot their holes prior
to being run to exhaustion, why not shoot them there and then?

and I am informed, but stand to be corrected, that a shotgun is the
preferred method for the hounds, which have passed their useful life and are
of course undomesticated.

On 22/11/04 9:44 pm, in article [email hidden],

Just zis Guy said:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:19:34 +0000, Al C-F
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And there was parliament labouring under the impression the ban was a
> ban on animal suffering when all along it was a ban on people enjoying
> themselves.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, not enjoying themselves, enjoying killing things. There is a
difference. Drag hunting remains legal, after all.

Yet said things are still to be killed, but in less effective (and
probably less enjoyable) ways.

In what way is two men with a gun less effective than a crowd of
people on horseback and a pack of dogs carefully bred to be not much
faster than the quarry?

Hounds catch fox = dead fox 99.999% of the time.
Man shoots fox = dead fox <<50% time and fox limps away to die in agony most
of the time. Shooting is a remarkably inefficient way of getting clean
kills.
Bullets flying around = dead people (at least three people last year of
which two were young teenagers)

Or you could use traps or poison.. neither of which appeal.

Quoted message said:

To say nothing of the hunts which have had to
work hard to ensure and adequate supply of "vermin" to "control".

A point of view based on one supposed statement.

Be a lot easier if they hunted in the city.. lots of foxes there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please explain the importance of your difference.

I would have thought that was obvious. There is nothing about hunting
for pest control which requires anything like the numbers of people
involved. It is extraordinarily inefficient! I can't imagine why
Maggie didn't ban it...

Cost/benefit analysis. What would all those people be doing otherwise?

It seems the major arguements against hunting are that :
1. People enjoy the process (whether they enjoy the killing or not is
another matter)

2. the chase is inhumane.

It is clear from what scientific evidence there is that the actual method of
death is quicker and less painful by a pack of hounds than by shooting in
the majority of cases. The tearing from limb to limb occurs after the fox is
dead so, though it may appear distasteful, the feelings of the fox have very
little if anything to do with events after its death.

Of course if the people who happen to participate in a particular activity
that you don't like, happen to be percieved as a social class that you bear
a grudge against then it makes it easier to whip up a forment against them.

The case is not simple and jingoistic anymore than wearing a PFDB is a
simple no-brainer.

...d

In article <[email hidden]>,

Al C-F said:

Have you strayed over to discussing certain inquiries into weapons of
mass destruction / invasion of Iraq, perchance?

Erm, no. Being quite so blatent about it is new. Pulling a few strings
in the background when you're not supposed to be allowed to do things
like choose your own judge is an age-old tradition, and is much of what
distinguishes a "good" lawyer ...

--
Nick Kew

David Martin [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Hounds catch fox = dead fox 99.999% of the time.
Man shoots fox = dead fox <<50% time and fox limps away to die in agony most
of the time. Shooting is a remarkably inefficient way of getting clean
kills.

Not really. Just requires that the person wielding the gun be using a
decent rifle and be trained and practised in its use. The problem is in
Farmer Bob letting fly with a shotgun, but this is hardly a method for
comparison. If they are a genuine problem then you get a professional to
deal with them, rather than a bunch of amateurs on horses.

Quoted message said:

Bullets flying around = dead people (at least three people last year of
which two were young teenagers)

See above for details on correct use of a gun.

Quoted message said:

Or you could use traps or poison.. neither of which appeal.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To say nothing of the hunts which have had to
work hard to ensure and adequate supply of "vermin" to "control".

A point of view based on one supposed statement.

Be a lot easier if they hunted in the city.. lots of foxes there.

But not as many hedges to jump in the city and the riding isn't as good.
Thus showing nicely that the real reason for the hunt is enjoyment, with
a practical service taking second place (Possibly as an excuse).

Quoted message said:

Cost/benefit analysis. What would all those people be doing otherwise?

Riding. The hunt is a good excuse for them, but most are regular horse
riders, so I'm sure (I do know a few) that they'd find some other excuse
for ambling round the countryside.

Quoted message said:

It seems the major arguements against hunting are that :
1. People enjoy the process (whether they enjoy the killing or not is
another matter)

2. the chase is inhumane.

It is clear from what scientific evidence there is that the actual method of
death is quicker and less painful by a pack of hounds than by shooting in
the majority of cases. The tearing from limb to limb occurs after the fox is
dead so, though it may appear distasteful, the feelings of the fox have very
little if anything to do with events after its death.

However, there is also very strong scientific evidence that the fox
feels what may be emotively described as "fear" during the chase. The
actually killing is the end point of a prolonged torture, during which a
creature which is used to being a top predator is put in the position of
prey.

Quoted message said:

Of course if the people who happen to participate in a particular activity
that you don't like, happen to be percieved as a social class that you bear
a grudge against then it makes it easier to whip up a forment against them.

Being a strident member of the upper-middle classes with many friends
hailing from the same background I take issue with this. Claiming that
this is a "class" issue is the same as branding the hunt-sabs as "common
oiks". Why do you feel that the former is acceptable when (presumably)
the latter isn't?

For most of us that supported the ban, the issue is the uneccessary
infliction of suffering on an animal, not the social circles of those
who do it.

Jon

"Nick Kew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Al C-F said:

Have you strayed over to discussing certain inquiries into weapons of
mass destruction / invasion of Iraq, perchance?

Erm, no. Being quite so blatent about it is new. Pulling a few strings
in the background when you're not supposed to be allowed to do things
like choose your own judge is an age-old tradition, and is much of what
distinguishes a "good" lawyer ...

for those with strong stomachs:some truly disturbing (and also truly odious)
stuff here from both sides;

http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:00:29 +0000, David Martin
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Hounds catch fox = dead fox 99.999% of the time.

Unless they don't. And the time to die is *always* prolonged,
otherwise where's the fun?

But you are missing the essential point: even using a dog or dogs to
hunt a fox, how many hangers-on are actually required?

Quoted message said:

Or you could use traps or poison.. neither of which appeal.

Why not? Too efficient?

Quoted message said:

Cost/benefit analysis. What would all those people be doing otherwise?

Sitting in the pub propping up the local economy.

Why is it that drag hunting, perfectly acceptable in Germany,
represents the End Of Civilisation As We Know It?

Quoted message said:

It seems the major arguements against hunting are that :
1. People enjoy the process (whether they enjoy the killing or not is
another matter)
2. the chase is inhumane.

And 3: the arguments advanced in favour have been, for the most part,
dishonest, leading to the suspicion that actually enjoying killing is
the major reason but that people are ashamed to admit it.

Quoted message said:

Of course if the people who happen to participate in a particular activity
that you don't like, happen to be percieved as a social class that you bear
a grudge against then it makes it easier to whip up a forment against them.

In my case? Unlikely. I went to a thousand-year-old public school.
The most vehement anti-hunter I know is a woman named Daphne, County
born and bred.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On 22/11/04 10:31 pm, in article [email hidden],

Jon Senior' jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk said:

David Martin [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Hounds catch fox = dead fox 99.999% of the time.
Man shoots fox = dead fox <<50% time and fox limps away to die in agony most
of the time. Shooting is a remarkably inefficient way of getting clean
kills.

Not really. Just requires that the person wielding the gun be using a
decent rifle and be trained and practised in its use. The problem is in
Farmer Bob letting fly with a shotgun, but this is hardly a method for
comparison. If they are a genuine problem then you get a professional to
deal with them, rather than a bunch of amateurs on horses.

Quoted message said:

Bullets flying around = dead people (at least three people last year of
which two were young teenagers)

See above for details on correct use of a gun.

Quoted message said:

Or you could use traps or poison.. neither of which appeal.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To say nothing of the hunts which have had to
work hard to ensure and adequate supply of "vermin" to "control".

A point of view based on one supposed statement.

Be a lot easier if they hunted in the city.. lots of foxes there.

But not as many hedges to jump in the city and the riding isn't as good.
Thus showing nicely that the real reason for the hunt is enjoyment, with
a practical service taking second place (Possibly as an excuse).

Quoted message said:

Cost/benefit analysis. What would all those people be doing otherwise?

Riding. The hunt is a good excuse for them, but most are regular horse
riders, so I'm sure (I do know a few) that they'd find some other excuse
for ambling round the countryside.

Quoted message said:

It seems the major arguements against hunting are that :
1. People enjoy the process (whether they enjoy the killing or not is
another matter)

2. the chase is inhumane.

It is clear from what scientific evidence there is that the actual method of
death is quicker and less painful by a pack of hounds than by shooting in
the majority of cases. The tearing from limb to limb occurs after the fox is
dead so, though it may appear distasteful, the feelings of the fox have very
little if anything to do with events after its death.

However, there is also very strong scientific evidence that the fox
feels what may be emotively described as "fear" during the chase. The
actually killing is the end point of a prolonged torture, during which a
creature which is used to being a top predator is put in the position of
prey.

Quoted message said:

Of course if the people who happen to participate in a particular activity
that you don't like, happen to be percieved as a social class that you bear
a grudge against then it makes it easier to whip up a forment against them.

Being a strident member of the upper-middle classes with many friends
hailing from the same background I take issue with this. Claiming that
this is a "class" issue is the same as branding the hunt-sabs as "common
oiks". Why do you feel that the former is acceptable when (presumably)
the latter isn't?

For most of us that supported the ban, the issue is the uneccessary
infliction of suffering on an animal, not the social circles of those
who do it.

having reviewed much of the evidence, I would concur with a ban. The 'sport'
element can be recreated by appropriate drag hunts which would avoid many of
the problems, minimise the disruption, and maintain the community benefits
(financial and social, as well as the disposal of carcasses).

Having been fairly ambivalent before, I'm prepared to say that I think a ban
is appropriate and workable.

...d

David Martin said:

2. the chase is inhumane.

It is clear from what scientific evidence there is that the actual method of
death is quicker and less painful by a pack of hounds than by shooting in
the majority of cases. The tearing from limb to limb occurs after the fox is
dead so, though it may appear distasteful, the feelings of the fox have very
little if anything to do with events after its death.

ISTR a study on stag hunting that showed massive stress in the animal
due to it being hunted for hours. I can't imagine that a fox's
biochemistry is vastly different in that respect.

R.

Richard said:

David Martin said:

2. the chase is inhumane.

It is clear from what scientific evidence there is that the actual method of
death is quicker and less painful by a pack of hounds than by shooting in
the majority of cases. The tearing from limb to limb occurs after the fox is
dead so, though it may appear distasteful, the feelings of the fox have very
little if anything to do with events after its death.

ISTR a study on stag hunting that showed massive stress in the animal
due to it being hunted for hours.

The study showed that if you make a deer run then there are biochemical
markers that show that it is getting tired. The studies were not
comprehensive and were open to some criticism.

Quoted message said:

I can't imagine that a fox's
biochemistry is vastly different in that respect.

There is a difference in the engineering aspect of how the body works as the
size changes. This would be expected to be reflected in how similar the
biochemistry is.

One of the arguements put forward is that: "there is little or no pain due
to the adreanlin in the system. As ther is no pain it is not cruel."
(paraphrase). That is debatable (obviously) but is not wholly untrue.

Personally I feel that if you want to kill a fox then there are more
efficient ways of doing so.

If you want a good chase across the countryside then there are better ways
of directing the chase than going after a wild animal that will not upset
land owners and others.

I'm quite happy with a ban.

...d

in message <[email hidden]>, Al C-F

(') said:

you know? said:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:42:45 +0000, " [Not Responding] "
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

And there was parliament labouring under the impression the ban was a
ban on animal suffering when all along it was a ban on people
enjoying themselves.

No, not enjoying themselves, enjoying killing things. There is a
difference. Drag hunting remains legal, after all.

Yet said things are still to be killed, but in less effective (and
probably less enjoyable) ways.

You know, this is all bollocks. Fifteen rabbits eat enough grass to feed
one sheep; a fox feeding a litter of young will cull that many in four
days. Even if it were true (as shepherds allege) that foxes
occasionally take lambs, foxes are a net benefit even on sheep farms.
For farmers who farm cattle, or for arable farmers, foxes are pure
benefit: they keep down the rabbits, hares, rats and voles which
otherwise consume pasture and damage crops. Only to free-range poultry
farmers and people rearing pheasants for 'sport' are foxes a 'pest';
for everyone else in the countryside they are pure benefit. There is no
reason for /country/ people to consider foxes vermin. And like any
other climax predator, when the availability of prey won't support the
population it will control itself automatically by starvation.

I appreciate that in urban areas and around major landfill sites things
may be different, but you don't get pompous asses in pink coats riding
horses through them.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig subject to change without notice ]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:35:10 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

And the reason for killing foxes in the first place is?

Because they interfere with other equally immoral activities such as
"farming" chickens.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:35:05 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

but you don't get pompous asses in pink coats riding
horses through them.

Oh dear.

David Martin said:

Personally I feel that if you want to kill a fox then there are more
efficient ways of doing so.

Depends how you measure 'efficiency'.

(Number of foxes wounded) / (number of foxes engaged) would yield a
larger number for shooting (and probably poisoning) than for hunting
with hounds.

Poisoning tends to affect other species.

Shooting seems to affect people (according to recent reports).

in message <[email hidden]>, Al C-F

(') said:

David Martin said:

Personally I feel that if you want to kill a fox then there are more
efficient ways of doing so.

Depends how you measure 'efficiency'.

(Number of foxes wounded) / (number of foxes engaged) would yield a
larger number for shooting (and probably poisoning) than for hunting
with hounds.

Poisoning tends to affect other species.

Shooting seems to affect people (according to recent reports).

And the reason for killing foxes in the first place is?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
;; Jim Morrison

On 23/11/04 11:03 pm, in article [email hidden],

Al C-F said:

David Martin said:

Personally I feel that if you want to kill a fox then there are more
efficient ways of doing so.

Depends how you measure 'efficiency'.

(Number of foxes wounded) / (number of foxes engaged) would yield a
larger number for shooting (and probably poisoning) than for hunting
with hounds.

Trapped and shot is probably the most efficient way in both that metric and
in terms of economics. If of course foxes actually need to be controlled in
that way.

Quoted message said:

Poisoning tends to affect other species.

And is illegal.

Quoted message said:

Shooting seems to affect people (according to recent reports).

Typically if they get hit by the shot..

...d

David Martin [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

The study showed that if you make a deer run then there are biochemical
markers that show that it is getting tired. The studies were not
comprehensive and were open to some criticism.

I can't quote them, but I'm sure there were similar studies into foxes
themselves.

Quoted message said:

There is a difference in the engineering aspect of how the body works as the
size changes. This would be expected to be reflected in how similar the
biochemistry is.

Actually, the biochemistry is remarkably similar in large animals. I
believe the differences tend to be on the scale of physiology rather
than biochemistry.

Quoted message said:

One of the arguements put forward is that: "there is little or no pain due
to the adreanlin in the system. As ther is no pain it is not cruel."
(paraphrase). That is debatable (obviously) but is not wholly untrue.

Not sure about that one. And there is more at stake than physical pain
at the end.

Jon

Al C-F [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

Depends how you measure 'efficiency'.

(Number of foxes wounded) / (number of foxes engaged) would yield a
larger number for shooting (and probably poisoning) than for hunting
with hounds.

This also depends (As mentioned previously) on who does the shooting. A
good marksmen with a rifle should have little trouble getting a one /
two shot kill. If there aren't enough foxes around to warrant employing
such a skilled individual, then it is arguable as to whether they need
culling in the first place.

Quoted message said:

Poisoning tends to affect other species.

True.

Quoted message said:

Shooting seems to affect people (according to recent reports).

As above, it depends on who is doing the shooting.

I once read an article by a US marine (Written prior to the recent
fracas in Iraq!) who was criticising the conduct of his fellow troops
during the first Gulf war. The interesting thing was that he was part of
a sniper group and was talking about the fact that prior to the
deployment of troops they were kicking around doing target practice.

A certain amount of this is standard military bravado, but he said that
a trained (And thus serving) sniper, knows whether the shot was on-
target as they pull the trigger.

The same is clearly not true when the shooter is using a shotgun which
he normally uses to vaporise rabbits (These people exist... I've met
them!).

Jon