Talk:Fox hunting/Archive 1

message: ", does not make it clear whether it would be legal to allow the dog to kill a fox that had only been injured by a shotgun."
I pulled this sentance, because I have a hunch that the law does clearly state, but I have not read a copy of the act, has anyone else?  I think this may have been what the recent court case was about.
Advice needed.
In fact the law is clear. It is illegal in Scotland to use dogs to chase or deliberately kill a fox. See the Act at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2002/20020006.htm. There are very limited exemptions. Section 2(2) exempts killing in the course of a legal activity (so not "in the course of" chasing a fox). 
Mike Hobday
=== NPOV ===
"To say you wish to allow the fox population to expand in an uncontrolled way is effectively to say you wish to see foxes' prey species hunted to death by foxes, and that you wish to condemn a large number of foxes to extended suffering." -- Is that really a NPOV?
=== 2005 Misconceptions about fox huntings ===
I would like to point out to some people who really don't know anything about the hunt.
1: The dogs bite the fox from the back of the neck killing it. Then they tear it up to pieces.
2: The hunt kills weak foxs (for example the sick or the old) who are more likely to look for easy prey (farm animals). The smart foxes survive the hunt and would aassociate the area with danger and stay away.
3: Thousands of dogs have to be put down beacuse they been breed specifically to hunt foxes and they can't be retrained.
4: Farmers will have to use snares and traps to kill foxes who are near the farm. This is a painful and slow death.
5: Shooting a fox with gun isn't practical beacuse the shooter can stay hunt the fox 24/7 and it's to effective. There is little chance the fox will survive the encounter. A fox who survives a fox hunt will know not to go to the area beacuse of the danger involved.
And before you accuse me of being biast you should know this. What ever you may think of Fox hunting at the end of the day a fox is a predator. He will try to kill farm animals. Weak animals will usually look for easy prey and it is them who are in the farms. Get rid of them and you will have a healthy species.
And no the fox isn't teared apart alive. The hounds have been traiend to bite the neck of the fox first to kill it. Then they will tear it up to peices.  Furious Stormrage
: 1. Yes, it killed foxes. This = bad.
: 2. See above.
: 3. Regretable, but unfortunately necessary. But i'm intrigued - you people didn't seem to care much about killing foxes, why care about the dogs?
: 4. Yes, this too should be banned. It won't, but it should be.
: 5. See above.
: And as for " at the end of the day"? the end of the day already came and went. And in the "end of the day", fox hunting was banned. --86.135.87.145 00:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 Scotland:  Flushing to Guns

message: I would like to point out to some people who really don't know anything about the hunt.
1: The dogs bite the fox from the back of the neck killing it. Then they tear it up to pieces.
2: The hunt kills weak foxs (for example the sick or the old) who are more likely to look for easy prey (farm animals). The smart foxes survive the hunt and would aassociate the area with danger and stay away.
3: Thousands of dogs have to be put down beacuse they been breed specifically to hunt foxes and they can't be retrained.
4: Farmers will have to use snares and traps to kill foxes who are near the farm. This is a painful and slow death.
5: Shooting a fox with gun isn't practical beacuse the shooter can stay hunt the fox 24/7 and it's to effective. There is little chance the fox will survive the encounter. A fox who survives a fox hunt will know not to go to the area beacuse of the danger involved.
And before you accuse me of being biast you should know this. What ever you may think of Fox hunting at the end of the day a fox is a predator. He will try to kill farm animals. Weak animals will usually look for easy prey and it is them who are in the farms. Get rid of them and you will have a healthy species.
And no the fox isn't teared apart alive. The hounds have been traiend to bite the neck of the fox first to kill it. Then they will tear it up to peices.  Furious Stormrage
: 1. Yes, it killed foxes. This = bad.
: 2. See above.
: 3. Regretable, but unfortunately necessary. But i'm intrigued - you people didn't seem to care much about killing foxes, why care about the dogs?
: 4. Yes, this too should be banned. It won't, but it should be.
: 5. See above.
: And as for " at the end of the day"? the end of the day already came and went. And in the "end of the day", fox hunting was banned. --86.135.87.145 00:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 Misconceptions about fox huntings 

message: The article reads "hunting dogs are more properly referred to as hounds." This is manifestly wrong: what about terriers, retrievers, pointers, and setters? I'm not really sure how to rephrase this. –Joke 20:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly reworded to include reference to hunting dogs article, which details gun dogs, etcetera. - Rorybowman 01:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals subsection 

message: Did some searching on evidence for blooding; to my surprise, only anti-hunt websites mention it.  The only other reference I could find was the Inquiry which says in a footnote that it's largely died out.  I thought there were pictures in the media a few years ago of William or Harry getting blooded?  Can anyone help provide verifiable information for this paragraph? Thanks! — ciphergoth 08:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times had a picture of a blooding only about a couple of years ago - I'll try and get a reference for that.  Of course, it's all a bit moot now because a picture of a blooding from today would be an instant conviction, at least in the UK... — ciphergoth 15:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: One hunter claims to have been blooded in 2004 - see http://www.hounds.org.uk/forums/index.php?s=db6627cdb948826ecc1683b9f441140f&showtopic=689&hl=blooding&st=0. That said, it is not thought to be widespread. MikeHobday 16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blooding 

message: Hello, I think the article could use a paragraph on the capturing of the fox from the wild, similar to Badger-digging.  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fox-digging

message: I've removed this whole section from the article:
:====Personal Choice====
:Some legal and philosophical perspectives can be made in support of this activity.  To whit: So long as an activity is legal, it should be allowed.  Also: For a majority of people to impose their will on a minority is wrong, be it from racial distaste, religious discrimination or any other lifestyle choice, such as fox hunting.
I think there should be a section presenting the argument on libertarian grounds, but this is completely incoherent and needs to be redone from scratch.  "So long as it's legal, it should be legal"?  Things don't become moral or immoral when they're made legal or illegal - the law is supposed to follow morality, not shape it.  "For a majority of people to impose their will on a minority is wrong" - this is an argument that there should be no laws of any kind, not just in regard to animal cruelty but on any other issue.  If this is the argument being made it should be explicit. 
I've had a go at replacing it, but it'll need work, and really someone should cite notable instances of the argument being made. — ciphergoth 08:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal choice 

message: Odd that I write a section in favour of hunting since I dislike it intensely.  As it happens, I dislike the hypocrisy surrounding the ban even more.  The cruelty argument against hunting does not stand up to scrutiny.  More odd is the fact that the hunting lobby did such a rotten job of pointing out the truth: that the alternatives to hunting manage to be even worse.  I have noticed that when talking with opponents of hunting, they often cannot remain calm and cannot rationally compare one cruelty with another. 86.129.162.104 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether they are obviously true or obviously false, the source cited is the opinion of a academic philosopher  rather than biological science. MikeHobday 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal cruelty comparison

message: Maybe it's just that I disagree with them, but the supporting arguments section seems to have become a bit disjointed. I don't think I'm the best person to start to tidy them up - so does anyone else fancy a try? MikeHobday 16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporting arguments

message: I edited a sentence on bloodhounds and hunting the clean boot, to link to appropriate articles, but now I wonder why that sentence was in Foxhunting afterall? 
Where the quarry is not fox and the joy of the sport is hound work and the "chase", and not shooting or trophy hunting, then perhaps a linkable Venery wiki is appropriate? Sanft 15:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried moving this up the article for now. MikeHobday 07:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: A significant portion of the anti-hunting people were arguing against hunting on the basis of killing any animal being wrong, presumably part of the whole 'meat is murder' movement. I don't think I can bring myself to write anything about it though because it seems so retarded to me that I'm not sure i could clearly make its case on a level more than "lolz animalz r teh cute no kill them murdererz"... prehaps someone who agrees with the all animal deaths are a bad thing POV could add something? 81.152.196.46 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to take a look at Jainism. Trollderella 04:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Immorality of killing animals