Fox Hunting (British)

[toastedmonkey]

Originally posted by Enigma@May 26 2004, 11:54 PM
Why should they be culled? What possible reason can you have to cull a species of animal? Its rubbish, the most efficent form of controlling numbers is nature its self. If fox populations become too high then they over hunt, and they starve, the food chain returns to normal.

I completely agree with you here Enigma

There is no need for fox hunting in todays society.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by NoXion@May 28 2004, 10:36 AM

You will never be clear, you are naturally ambiguous, at the best of times. But with almost superhuman effort I could decipher what you intended to say.

I'm clear as crystal to anyone who has basic reading comprehension. The superhuman effort on your part is the natural outcome of a molecular mind.

"you spout incorrect arguments used by conservatives, which are used as excuses to encourage a toffs sport, then I call you out on it."

If you paid a little more attention while reading instead of allowing your head to fizz with moral indignation like a dose of salts, you might possibly have noticed that I did not support fox hunting. Maybe if you got off your moral trip you'll be able to pay attention instead of hysterically pointing your finger at someone and screaming 'witch, witch!'

Your arguments are used by conservatives, as an excuse for fox hunting, like it or not.

That alone doesn't invalidate fox hunting, it's the pompousness and unnecessary cruelty that invalidates fox hunting.

Come back to Earth as soon as you've finished.

I'm clear as crystal to anyone who has basic reading comprehension.

Yeah you keep telling your self that.

The superhuman effort on your part is the natural outcome of a molecular mind.

What your implying that my brain is made of molecules? Well you sure have begun the long and arduous task of mastering the obvious.

If you paid a little more attention while reading instead of allowing your head to fizz with moral indignation like a dose of salts,

No, I payed great attention to what you said, you have just completely failed to read my responce.

It seams i will have to spell it out for you after all.

YOU dont support fox hunting, but you support culling foxes when they are pests. This argument is used, by fox hunters, and conservatives, but for different purposes. But it still remains a conservative argument.

I dispair, I really do.

Maybe if you got off your moral trip you'll be able to pay attention instead of hysterically pointing your finger at someone and screaming 'witch, witch!'

Quote me.

That alone doesn't invalidate fox hunting, it's the pompousness and unnecessary cruelty that invalidates fox hunting.

That has absiolutly no relevance, to the point being made, which is that your argument is shared by conservatives, thus making it a conservative argument.

The fact that fox hunting is completely invalid goes without saying.

Come back to Earth as soon as you've finished.

maybe when you've got a clue.

[DaCuBaN]

you support culling foxes when they are pests. This argument is used, by fox hunters, and conservatives, but for different purposes. But it still remains a conservative argument.

Although it's currently not a problem it uite easily could become one. Granted a ban on fox hunting isn't going to create such a problem overnight, but the Fox has no predator...

There's only us.

As for it being a conservative argument, I think you are being obtuse. It's an argument that conservatives use, but they only take this line because they have such vehemont opposition towards their cruel 'sport'. They don't actually believe this argument, and hence is not theirs

It&#39;s a reformist argument, and perfectly valid. This is just another one of those situations that has no right or wrong <_<

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by DaCuBaN@May 28 2004, 05:09 PM

you support culling foxes when they are pests. This argument is used, by fox hunters, and conservatives, but for different purposes. But it still remains a conservative argument.

Although it&#39;s currently not a problem it uite easily could become one. Granted a ban on fox hunting isn&#39;t going to create such a problem overnight, but the Fox has no predator...

There&#39;s only us.

As for it being a conservative argument, I think you are being obtuse. It&#39;s an argument that conservatives use, but they only take this line because they have such vehemont opposition towards their cruel &#39;sport&#39;. They don&#39;t actually believe this argument, and hence is not theirs

It&#39;s a reformist argument, and perfectly valid. This is just another one of those situations that has no right or wrong <_<

but the Fox has no predator...

Exactly, and because it is completely reliant on the existance of other animals to survive, its numbers cannot grow excessivly high. Natural regulation.

I think you are being obtuse.

You can think what you like.

They don&#39;t actually believe this argument,

And how exactly do you know they dont believe it? They clearly do believe it, hell I have fox hunters in my family (no ones perfect) and she does actually believe it, she thinks they are pests and need to be wiped out, and actually thinks fox hunting helps.


It&#39;s a reformist argument,

No, its not reformist, what is it trying to reform? Its the conservative reactionary argument. The anti-fox hunters, the ones who attack this argument and contradict it are using reformist arguments.

and perfectly valid.

No, its not valid because its not true, not even remotly true.

This is just another one of those situations that has no right or wrong

Now your not being obtuse, just naive.

[cubist]

oh i think they should be alowwed to do it in hell

[DaCuBaN]

Exactly, and because it is completely reliant on the existance of other animals to survive, its numbers cannot grow excessivly high. Natural regulation.

How is this relevant to the fact that noone is feeding on the fox? Bear in mind I&#39;m in favour of a ban on blood-sports but can see the justification behind culling selective amounts of an animal that is, other than man, top dog in it&#39;s environment.

And how exactly do you know they dont believe it? They clearly do believe it, hell I have fox hunters in my family (no ones perfect) and she does actually believe it, she thinks they are pests and need to be wiped out, and actually thinks fox hunting helps.

What, the argument that the only way to stop the fox population getting out of control is by selective culling? They want to protect their sport, remember&#33; They don&#39;t give a shit about the foxes one way or another&#33;

No, its not reformist, what is it trying to reform? Its the conservative reactionary argument. The anti-fox hunters, the ones who attack this argument and contradict it are using reformist arguments

Keeping the status quo is a conservative argument, changing to moderated culling through humane(ish) means is a reformist argument and Ban it all is an environmentalist&#39;s argument.

No, its not valid because its not true, not even remotly true

And you assert this with what backing? We&#39;ve been hunting foxes in the UK for more years than I care to remember - or even could remember - the bloodsport involved is far older than I. Where does this assertion that fox numbers may have to be controlled through other means once a hunting ban is in place? Through reason - if we stop killing them and there is no predator for them, they will continue to grow in exactly the same way the human race does and eventually outgrow their environment.

Now your not being obtuse, just naive

I would say that it is you that is being naive - there are not simply two arguments involved here. I wouldn&#39;t dream of backing the fox hunters in their claims that they have every right to mutilate the poor little blighters in the way they do, but it is perfectly reasonable to assume that some kind of control may
My point is this is not black and white. There are at least three, if not more arguments involved here.

So please, stop being such a reactionary and look at the situation from a scientific standpoint.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And what about urban foxes who feed on the never ending stream of rubbish available?

[pedro san pedro]

Why should they be culled? What possible reason can you have to cull a species of animal? Its rubbish, the most efficent form of controlling numbers is nature its self. If fox populations become too high then they over hunt, and they starve, the food chain returns to normal.

i dont personally know much about fox populations, but the above statement, if taken as a generalisation, is completely invalid.

our environment is completely out of whack - it is going to require sensible management by humans to tick over nicely.

it is blatently obvious that populations no longer contoll themselves - feral pests are a major problem in my part of the world.

granted, most of these are introduced animals, but the environment hs been so altered by now, that the natural checks and balances are way out order.

[DaCuBaN]

what about urban foxes who feed on the never ending stream of rubbish available?

I don&#39;t understand what you&#39;re actually asking here...

I&#39;m asserting that foxes have no predators - they themselves are only hunted by man. I&#39;m sure both urban and rural foxes have plenty to eat, and as such their population will continue to grow expodentially without some form of control. This could be through a form of cull, or even through the (arguably) more humane method of selective castration.

Are you asserting that we can control fox populations by reducing our waste output? I&#39;m sure this is perfectly valid, but I don&#39;t think this can be it as it doesn&#39;t seem terribly relevant.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by DaCuBaN@May 30 2004, 07:34 AM

Exactly, and because it is completely reliant on the existance of other animals to survive, its numbers cannot grow excessivly high. Natural regulation.

How is this relevant to the fact that noone is feeding on the fox? Bear in mind I&#39;m in favour of a ban on blood-sports but can see the justification behind culling selective amounts of an animal that is, other than man, top dog in it&#39;s environment.

And how exactly do you know they dont believe it? They clearly do believe it, hell I have fox hunters in my family (no ones perfect) and she does actually believe it, she thinks they are pests and need to be wiped out, and actually thinks fox hunting helps.

What, the argument that the only way to stop the fox population getting out of control is by selective culling? They want to protect their sport, remember&#33; They don&#39;t give a shit about the foxes one way or another&#33;

No, its not reformist, what is it trying to reform? Its the conservative reactionary argument. The anti-fox hunters, the ones who attack this argument and contradict it are using reformist arguments

Keeping the status quo is a conservative argument, changing to moderated culling through humane(ish) means is a reformist argument and Ban it all is an environmentalist&#39;s argument.

No, its not valid because its not true, not even remotly true

And you assert this with what backing? We&#39;ve been hunting foxes in the UK for more years than I care to remember - or even could remember - the bloodsport involved is far older than I. Where does this assertion that fox numbers may have to be controlled through other means once a hunting ban is in place? Through reason - if we stop killing them and there is no predator for them, they will continue to grow in exactly the same way the human race does and eventually outgrow their environment.

Now your not being obtuse, just naive

I would say that it is you that is being naive - there are not simply two arguments involved here. I wouldn&#39;t dream of backing the fox hunters in their claims that they have every right to mutilate the poor little blighters in the way they do, but it is perfectly reasonable to assume that some kind of control may
My point is this is not black and white. There are at least three, if not more arguments involved here.

So please, stop being such a reactionary and look at the situation from a scientific standpoint.

How is this relevant to the fact that noone is feeding on the fox?

Its relevant in that it is entirly reliant on other animals further down the food chain, which means that culling is unecessary, as its numbers are self regulating. just because its the top of the chain doesn&#39;t mean that its numbers will always grow, quite the reverse.

They want to protect their sport, remember&#33;

Yes, I agree that there are many contradictions within the fox hunters arguments. But seriously some of them believe in fox hunting as a method of culling.

Keeping the status quo is a conservative argument, changing to moderated culling through humane(ish) means is a reformist argument and Ban it all is an environmentalist&#39;s argument.


I disagree, because the selective culling is used by the conservatives as an excuse, which has tainted it with the conservative ideals.


And you assert this with what backing?

Because its pointless, culling is unecessary because the fox population is self regulating. If they grow to high in numbers, then there will not be enough food to go round and they return to an acceptable number.

We&#39;ve been hunting foxes in the UK for more years than I care to remember - or even could remember - the bloodsport involved is far older than I.

You were talking about culling, and now your talking about fox hunting, what is your point?

Where does this assertion that fox numbers may have to be controlled through other means once a hunting ban is in place?

I have no idea, not from a logical person, because its not a logical view.

Through reason - if we stop killing them and there is no predator for them, they will continue to grow in exactly the same way the human race does and eventually outgrow their environment.


Not true, because unlike humans foxs do not have a concept of farming, and cannot grow beyond the carring capacity of the enviroment. If they grow too high in numbers then the enviroment can not support them, they starve, numbers return to normal. That the way it works.

Its a proven statistic, that fox hunting does not regulate fox numbers anyway, in any one given area the fox hunt is not likley to catch and kill more than 1 in 1000 foxes. Foxhunting does not regulate numbers.

I would say that it is you that is being naive

well thats your opinion.

My point is this is not black and white.


I disagree, it is a very black and white situation, fox hunting is immoral, and culling is unecessary, for reasons already given.

So please, stop being such a reactionary and look at the situation from a scientific standpoint.

Sorry, but your views dont have a basis in science, where as mine do. Taken from an education site: -

"A change in the size of one population in a food chain will affect other populations. This interdependence of the populations within a food chain helps to maintain the balance of plant and animal populations within a community. For example, when there are too many giraffes; there will be insufficient trees and shrubs for all of them to eat. Many giraffes will starve and die. Less giraffes means more time for the trees and shrubs to grow to maturity and multiply. Less giraffes also means less food is available for the lions to eat and some lions will starve to death. When there are fewer lions, the giraffe population will increase."

http://www.vtaide.com/png/foodchains.htm

An example of natural regulation, an animal cannot exceed the balance, for a long period of time, before the balance is returned to normal. Humans are different because we are an ingenius animal and have developed methods to exceed our natural balance.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by NoXion@May 30 2004, 09:08 AM
And what about urban foxes who feed on the never ending stream of rubbish available?

An interesting question, however the solution to that problem is not to cull the urban fox population, but to imrove our waste managment system. And not be so damn wasteful.

I don&#39;t understand what you&#39;re actually asking here...

he is making the perfectly valid point that fox populations in cities will continue to grow natural balance or no, because they are living off human wastage, and as such will need culling in city area&#39;s. However I am asserting that culling is not the answer, and that better regulation of wastage is.

[Hate Is Art]

I think Blair is trying to push through a ban on fox-hunting properly now&#33; I can remember reading it in the paper awhile ago&#33;

[DaCuBaN]

I&#39;m getting seriously sick of this debate... It&#39;s like arguing with a brick wall, despite the fact I&#39;m arguing from the middle ground.

culling is unecessary because the fox population is self regulating

Laissez Faire environmentalism, eh?
The Rabbit population in the UK is enormou and constantly growing. These are one of the creatures the Fox considers food. If we have no regulation on the growth of the fox population - bearing in mind this merely entails monitoring the population to see if any control is necessary, not necessarily killing 200 foxes a year or any other number you wish - then we will see decline in the rabbit population as a result. It&#39;s picking sides. You are asserting that the fox deserves to live more than the rabbit. This is hardly fair.

Yes, I agree that there are many contradictions within the fox hunters arguments. But seriously some of them believe in fox hunting as a method of culling

I do agree these people exist - their argument&#39;s can be instantly dismissed though, as there are clearly other - better, cheaper - ways of controlling the population

Getting dressed up in your finery and sending dogs after them whilst you blow on horns and shout isn&#39;t exactly efficient

I disagree, because the selective culling is used by the conservatives as an excuse, which has tainted it with the conservative ideals.

They may use it as an excuse, but as outlined above it doesn&#39;t serve their purposes. They don&#39;t have anything against the fox personally - they wish to continue their sport.

Because its pointless, culling is unecessary because the fox population is self regulating. If they grow to high in numbers, then there will not be enough food to go round and they return to an acceptable number

Urban foxes are the problem here - they are inventive little buggers and do not revert to their numbers as they are living off us. This will inevitably end in the domestication of foxes, which I think would be a crying shame.

Keeping the status quo is a conservative argument, changing to moderated culling through humane(ish) means is a reformist argument and Ban it all is an environmentalist&#39;s argument

I would assert that environmentalist should be replaced with reactionary

lit. "YOU CAN&#39;T DO THAT" without any proposal of another kind. I do not believe leaving them alone would be a good idea. Do you simply disagree and leave it at that, or would you care to refute?

I have no idea, not from a logical person, because its not a logical view

I am very much NOT an environmentalist if you hadn&#39;t guessed Mankind is king of this environment and I adamantly support this. I think we should be meddling in everything but I oppose unnecessary cruelty. Hence I feel a ban is both perfectly logical and reasonable. Sitting back and doing nothing certainly is not.

If they grow too high in numbers then the enviroment can not support them, they starve, numbers return to normal. That the way it works

We can control their environment to an extent without causing them harm. The other option is leaving them to starve... By all means you can, but I won&#39;t. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - although the fox doesn&#39;t understand this I do. So for a few to die so that all may live well is better than every fox being malnourished apart from the really nasty ones - the real &#39;top dogs&#39;

Its a proven statistic, that fox hunting does not regulate fox numbers anyway, in any one given area the fox hunt is not likley to catch and kill more than 1 in 1000 foxes. Foxhunting does not regulate numbers

Do you not understand my entire argument agrees with this? by agreeing to some form of controls on their environment, we outlaw the bloodsport and undermine their entire argument. How can this possibly be a bad thing?

I would say that it is you that is being naive

My apologies for the insults... let&#39;s keep this flame-free from here, eh?

An example of natural regulation, an animal cannot exceed the balance, for a long period of time, before the balance is returned to normal. Humans are different because we are an ingenius animal and have developed methods to exceed our natural balance

I understand the theory perfectly, but - especially in the UK - we do not have a natural environment. We&#39;ve totally screwed it up already. I believe the only way to bring this balance back from the brink of destruction is through careful control and monitoring of all species

Mankind included

he is making the perfectly valid point that fox populations in cities will continue to grow natural balance or no, because they are living off human wastage, and as such will need culling in city area&#39;s. However I am asserting that culling is not the answer, and that better regulation of wastage is

I said exactly the same thing in a post placed almost concurrently to your own. However I beleive that both controls on animal populations and waste output need to be considered.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by DaCuBaN@May 30 2004, 11:19 AM
I&#39;m getting seriously sick of this debate... It&#39;s like arguing with a brick wall, despite the fact I&#39;m arguing from the middle ground.

culling is unecessary because the fox population is self regulating

Laissez Faire environmentalism, eh?
The Rabbit population in the UK is enormou and constantly growing. These are one of the creatures the Fox considers food. If we have no regulation on the growth of the fox population - bearing in mind this merely entails monitoring the population to see if any control is necessary, not necessarily killing 200 foxes a year or any other number you wish - then we will see decline in the rabbit population as a result. It&#39;s picking sides. You are asserting that the fox deserves to live more than the rabbit. This is hardly fair.

Yes, I agree that there are many contradictions within the fox hunters arguments. But seriously some of them believe in fox hunting as a method of culling

I do agree these people exist - their argument&#39;s can be instantly dismissed though, as there are clearly other - better, cheaper - ways of controlling the population

Getting dressed up in your finery and sending dogs after them whilst you blow on horns and shout isn&#39;t exactly efficient

I disagree, because the selective culling is used by the conservatives as an excuse, which has tainted it with the conservative ideals.

They may use it as an excuse, but as outlined above it doesn&#39;t serve their purposes. They don&#39;t have anything against the fox personally - they wish to continue their sport.

Because its pointless, culling is unecessary because the fox population is self regulating. If they grow to high in numbers, then there will not be enough food to go round and they return to an acceptable number

Urban foxes are the problem here - they are inventive little buggers and do not revert to their numbers as they are living off us. This will inevitably end in the domestication of foxes, which I think would be a crying shame.

Keeping the status quo is a conservative argument, changing to moderated culling through humane(ish) means is a reformist argument and Ban it all is an environmentalist&#39;s argument

I would assert that environmentalist should be replaced with reactionary

lit. "YOU CAN&#39;T DO THAT" without any proposal of another kind. I do not believe leaving them alone would be a good idea. Do you simply disagree and leave it at that, or would you care to refute?

I have no idea, not from a logical person, because its not a logical view

I am very much NOT an environmentalist if you hadn&#39;t guessed Mankind is king of this environment and I adamantly support this. I think we should be meddling in everything but I oppose unnecessary cruelty. Hence I feel a ban is both perfectly logical and reasonable. Sitting back and doing nothing certainly is not.

If they grow too high in numbers then the enviroment can not support them, they starve, numbers return to normal. That the way it works

We can control their environment to an extent without causing them harm. The other option is leaving them to starve... By all means you can, but I won&#39;t. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - although the fox doesn&#39;t understand this I do. So for a few to die so that all may live well is better than every fox being malnourished apart from the really nasty ones - the real &#39;top dogs&#39;

Its a proven statistic, that fox hunting does not regulate fox numbers anyway, in any one given area the fox hunt is not likley to catch and kill more than 1 in 1000 foxes. Foxhunting does not regulate numbers

Do you not understand my entire argument agrees with this? by agreeing to some form of controls on their environment, we outlaw the bloodsport and undermine their entire argument. How can this possibly be a bad thing?

I would say that it is you that is being naive

My apologies for the insults... let&#39;s keep this flame-free from here, eh?

An example of natural regulation, an animal cannot exceed the balance, for a long period of time, before the balance is returned to normal. Humans are different because we are an ingenius animal and have developed methods to exceed our natural balance

I understand the theory perfectly, but - especially in the UK - we do not have a natural environment. We&#39;ve totally screwed it up already. I believe the only way to bring this balance back from the brink of destruction is through careful control and monitoring of all species

Mankind included

he is making the perfectly valid point that fox populations in cities will continue to grow natural balance or no, because they are living off human wastage, and as such will need culling in city area&#39;s. However I am asserting that culling is not the answer, and that better regulation of wastage is

I said exactly the same thing in a post placed almost concurrently to your own. However I beleive that both controls on animal populations and waste output need to be considered.

Laissez Faire environmentalism, eh?

No, just science. The food chain is a well documented and accepted science. If you care to look it up you will see that it agree&#39;s with what I have been posting.


The Rabbit population in the UK is enormou and constantly growing.

The Rabbit is not native to the UK, the fox is.

These are one of the creatures the Fox considers food.

Traditionally no, the rabbit is far faster and more agile than the fox, the fox would have to put in considerable effort, for in many cases no reward in order to catch rabbits in any striking numbers. Hense the reason that rabbit populations are not regulated, and they "breed like bunnies".

This is hardly fair.

Nature isn&#39;t fair, get over it.


Getting dressed up in your finery and sending dogs after them whilst you blow on horns and shout isn&#39;t exactly efficient

And it doesnt regulate fox population.

Urban foxes are the problem here - they are inventive little buggers and do not revert to their numbers as they are living off us. This will inevitably end in the domestication of foxes, which I think would be a crying shame.

I have already addressed this point, its much easier to attempt to stop waste, than pissing around trying to kill off the, mice, rats, foxes, roaches, strays, etc, because the buggers will just keep coming back. no you should tackle the root of the problem, and not piss around.


I do not believe leaving them alone would be a good idea. Do you simply disagree and leave it at that,

Sounds good, i&#39;ve spent several hours refuting it already, and producing counter arguments, which apparently are being completely ignored, best to just agree to disagree.

The other option is leaving them to starve

Thats nature, how its worked for thousands of years, my argument is against human intervetion in general, it is all bad.

lets leave it at that.

[Dune Dx]

I think Fox hunting is cruel and barbaric and should be banned but to keep fox numbers down farmers will resort to putting down traps that can be just as horrible as the animal bleeds to death.

I cant remeber what but i think I heard something that famers would use traps over poison ... cost effective I think

[DaCuBaN]

lets leave it at that

Agreed

I think this does simply come down to the fundamental difference between us...

my argument is against human intervetion in general, it is all bad.

And I am the opposite

Finito&#33;

[Hate Is Art]

Keep an upper class toffs head on the wall? Sounds Appealing

[dark fairy]

i don&#39;t agree with all of the options completly...i don&#39;t like it when animals are killed for fun or sports...if you are going to eat the animal sure go ahead ... when you use as much of the animal as posible sure and even sucks because in time there won&#39;t be any of that animal left... but sure kill some just kill them responsibly